Crl. Rev. No. 3260 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 3260 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 9, 2010 Mehal Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. Sukhjinder Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) By restoration of a compliant in warrant case, dismissed in default by the trial Court, no illegality seems to have been committed by the revisional Court. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant had wrongly mentioned in the ground of revision that an application for Crl. Rev. No. 3260 of 2010 [2] exemption from personal appearance of the complainant had been moved on November 28, 2009. Heard. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the revision has been accepted on the ground that an application had been filed by counsel for the complainant for exemption of complainant from personal appearance. The only relief in equity which can be granted to the petitioners is that they could have been compensated for the unnecessary inconvenience caused to them on account of fault of the complainant. The trial Court in this case could have adjourned or postpone the date of hearing on payment of costs by the complainant exercising jurisdiction under Section 309 (2), explanation 2 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are held entitled to the payment of costs as per the abovesaid provision. This petition is dismissed. However, it is ordered that the petitioners will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.5000/- as costs for the unnecessary harassment caused to them. December 9, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE