Civil Revision No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.03.2010 Gram Panchayat Raipur Rani ....Petitioner Versus Janak Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sanjeev K. Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.6.2009, vide which the application moved by the petitioner, for setting aside ex parte order dated 30.10.2006, was ordered to be dismissed. Plaintiff/respondent No.3 filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, from interfering in the legal and peaceful possession of the plaintiff and further restraining the defendant No.2 i.e. Smt. Janak Rani from opening any door etc. in the suit property, and restraining the defendants not to obstruct the reconstruction of two pillars and a parda wall in the property i.e. common courtyard and kuchaband passage of the plaintiff marked ABCDEFGHI at village Raipur Rani, Tehsil and District Panchkula. Civil Revision No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The petitioner though appeared in the Court but thereafter failed to appear and ex parte order was passed against it on 30.10.2006. No steps were taken by the petitioner/defendant No.1 to get the ex parte order set aside. On 6.12.2008 an application was moved for setting aside the ex parte order dated 30.10.2006. The learned Court below did not find any sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte proceedings. The reason for coming to this conclusion was, that son of defendant No.2 was member of the panchayat, who was interested party in this case. Thus, the learned Court did not accept the story, that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings in the case for want of information from the counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that even if the petitioner was not able to make out sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte order dated 30.10.2006, the Court, in any case, was bound to permit the petitioner to participate in the suit, from the date of moving the application for setting aside ex parte order. In find force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned trial Court exercised the discretion vested in it in declining to set aside the ex parte order dated 30.10.2006, on account of the failure of the petitioner to show sufficient cause for its absence in the proceedings for a long period of two years, in spite of the fact that the panchayat had the knowledge of the proceedings of the suit. However, the learned Court was not justified, in not allowing the petitioner to participate from the date of moving the application/putting in appearance. Civil Revision No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. However, the order is modified by directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner to join the proceedings w.e.f. 6.12.2008. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) March 02, 2010 Judge R.S.