Civil Revision No. 1836 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1836 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.8.2009 Kashmir Singh ......petitioner Versus Shiv Bhola Metal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Raj Kumar and Shiv Bhola Metal Industries through its proprietor had filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.2003. Thereafter, defendant-petitioner preferred an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Jagadhari vide order dated 12.10.2007. In appeal, the said order was maintained by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide order dated 24.2.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to inadvertence, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court and pursue the suit. In fact, the petitioner had not been correctly advised by his counsel and due to this reason, he did not come to Civil Revision No. 1836 of 2009 2 know about passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.6.2003. Moreover, in the year 2004, the petitioner had met with an accident and had suffered injuries and due to this reason he could not pursue the case. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner: 1. Whether the ex parte order dated 19.5.2003 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 5.6.2003 passed in civil suit no.8 of 1997 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPP 2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the application is time barred? OPD 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner in order to support his case appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of the application. The civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1997. Thereafter, defendants were proceeded ex parte by the trial Court vide order dated 10.2.1999 and the ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 7.6.2000. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings on 24.7.2000 and the said application was allowed. The petitioner filed his written statement and the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff. However, again the petitioner was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19.5.2003. It has been Civil Revision No. 1836 of 2009 3 noticed by the Appellate Court in its judgment that the appellant- petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that he had filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident and the said case had remained pending in the Court for about two years. Thus, the petitioner had been pursuing his claim case and hence, learned Appellate Court rightly held that it could not be believed that the petitioner had not enquired about the case for specific performance pending against him. The execution petition was filed on 28.4.2004 and warrants of attachment had been issued on 29.4.2004 despite that the application for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree was filed in June, 2006. Apparently, the intention of the petitioner is to prolong the proceedings. The petitioner has already sold the property in dispute and a decree for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- was passed against him. Seemingly, due to this reason also, the petitioner did not pursue the case. In these circumstances, the inference drawn by the Appellate Court that the petitioner had intentionally and deliberately not appeared in the trial Court to pursue the suit calls for no interference. Hence, no ground for interference is called for. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2009 anita