Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.5.2009 Union of India and others ..... Petitioners vs Bhupinder Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P. S. Sarna, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioners/ defendants for setting aside the ex-parte order passed against them was rejected. Briefly, the facts are that respondent no. 1 filed a suit challenging the appointment of respondent no. 2 in Fire Services of 3 BRD and subsequent promotions. In the suit the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte on 4.9.2008. The application filed for setting aside ex-parte order was dismissed by the learned court below vide the impugned order holding the same to be belated and finding the cause shown by the petitioners for non-appearance on the date fixed to be not bona fide. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 8.8.2008 when the case was adjourned to 4.9.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners by mistake noted down the date as 8.10.2008. When the case was not listed on 8.10.2008, on inquiry it was found that the petitioners were directed to be proceeded against ex-parte on 4.9.2008. Immediately on 24.10.2008, the application for setting aside of the ex-parte order was filed which was supported by the affidavit of the counsel. Still the learned court below has dismissed the same doubting the bonafide of the petitioners and also considering the application to be belated. Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2008 (2) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that petitioners were not vigilant about the case. The case was adjourned to 4.9.2008 in the presence of counsel for the parties. The case was at the initial stage as written statement was yet to be filed and as such there was no question of adjourning the case for a period of two months. Even after coming to know about the order of ex-parte proceedings on 8.10.2008, the application was filed 16 days thereafter which lacked bonafide. No illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is a case where the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was filed explaining the reasons for non-appearance on 4.9.2008, on which date the petitioners were directed to be proceeded against ex-parte. It was supported by the affidavit of counsel for the petitioners representing them before the court below where he had endorsed the facts stated in the application. The cause shown by the petitioners, in my opinion, cannot be said to be lacking bonafide. Mistake can occur in noting down a date by the counsel or his clerk. A litigant is always informed about the date by his counsel and in case any such bonafide mistake had occurred for that reason, the petitioners should not be made to suffer and directed to be proceeded against ex-parte by even rejecting their application for setting aside of that order. The observations of the learned court below that the application was belated even though filed on 24.10.2008 after coming to know about the order dated 4.9.2008 is also totally hyper-technical approach. The petitioners/ defendants are Union of India and Air Force authorities, in such circumstances, it always take some time in getting the things to move. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the learned court below and the order dated 4.9.2008 directing ex-parte proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. 20.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge