IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5969 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th November, 2009. Pritam Singh Petitioner through Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate Versus Krisha Respondent through Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the defendant against the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge [Senior Division], Karnal whereby an application moved by the petitioner – defendant to set aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 27.4.2005, has been dismissed. The respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.7.2003 against the petitioner – defendant. Upon receiving notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. Thereafter, as he claims, the matter was compromised in the village and the respondent – plaintiff had given an undertaking to withdraw the suit. However, he did not honour the undertaking, though the petitioner remained under a bona-fide impression as if the suit had been withdrawn and he did not appear before the Civil Court. He was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte on 27.4.2005. As soon as the petitioner – defendant came to know, he applied for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 27.4.2005 but his application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Though the suit is pending from last over five years, nevertheless the plaintiff's evidence is yet to start. Since the petitioner – defendant has already filed the written statement, no serious prejudice shall be caused to the respondent – plaintiff in case the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings as no evidence has been produced by the respondent – plaintiff so far. Only some issues might have to be re-framed by the trial Court. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 19.8.2009 is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner – defendant to set aside the ex- parte proceedings is accepted and consequently the order dated 27.4.2005 is also set aside, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- to the respondent – plaintiff. Disposed of. Dasti. November 10, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE