Civil Revision No.3314 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3314 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 26, 2011 Gurbachan Kaur and others .....Petitioners v. Karnail Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.16738-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record zimni orders. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.3314 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 29.4.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by petitioners-defendants for setting aside order dated 30.7.2008, vide which they were proceeded ex parte, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- Civil Revision No.3314 of 2011(O&M) -2- defendants that their counsel could not appear only on one date, i.e., 30.7.2008 due to inadvertence as some other cases were also pending between the parties. It is further contended that the case was fixed for consideration of the application for amendment of the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be called as the `Code') by respondents-plaintiffs and the case was being adjourned for that purpose only till today. It is contended that attendance is being marked in routine by learned trial Court and even in some of the subsequent orders, attendance was marked as counsel for the parties. Contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is in accordance with the copies of various zimni orders placed on record. Petitioners are having right to appear at any stage of proceedings. No effective proceeding has taken place in the case since petitioner was proceeded ex parte, as the case was fixed for consideration of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code on 30.7.2008 and even today the case is fixed for the said purpose only. Hence, in view of these facts, learned trial Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in declining the request of petitioners-defendants for setting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 30.7.2008. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, application filed by petitioners-defendants for setting aside ex parte proceedings is allowed subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost. 26.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge