C.R. No. 6112 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6112 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 29, 2009 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad …..Petitioner Vs. Naresh Kumar and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. M.K. Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Heard. The application of the petitioner Municipal Corporation, Ballabgarh Zone, Faridabad, who is defendant No.2 in a suit filed by respondent No.1- Naresh Kumar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, has been dismissed vide impugned order. C.R. No. 6112 of 2008 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order dated June 8, 2007 wherein it has been recorded that defendant No.2 (the present petitioner) had not been served for June 8, 2007. On June 8, 2007, the lower Court ordered the issuance of notice to the petitioner (defendant No.2) for June 9, 2007 on PF. It is not understood as to how the notice could have been served for the next day, excepted to appear, engage a counsel and pursue the proceedings. A reasonable time is always required to be given to a defendant to appear after receipt of summons. In this context provisions of Order 9 Rule 6 (1) (c) CPC can be referred to which provisions requires that the Court shall postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day to be fixed by the Court if it is proved that the summons had been served upon the defendant but not in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed in the summons. In the present case, after having issued notice on June 8, 2007 to the petitioner for June 9, 2007, the order of proceeding against the petitioner ex-parte on June 9, 2007 seems to be not sustainable. The application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings deserves to be allowed. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the orders dated June 9, 2007 ordering ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner and the order dated August 13, 2008, dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings are hereby set aside. Petitioner will be permitted to file the written statement and contest the suit filed by the plaintiff subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. The costs will be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff- respondent on next date of hearing before the trial Court. It is C.R. No. 6112 of 2008 [3] made clear that in case the petitioner does not want to file a written statement, it will be open for him to participate in the further proceedings depending upon the stake of the petitioner involved in the matter. However, the plaintiff will be entitled to file a replication in case the petitioner offers to file written statement. Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and that the impugned order will be deemed to have been passed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC against which the appeal lies and the revision is not maintainable. I have considered the said contention and find no force in the same. Merely mentioning of a wrong provision in the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner. Application on the face of it is under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and not under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, as has been wrongly mentioned. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is thus dismissed. July 29, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE