Civil Revision No.3068 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3068 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Tarsem Singh ......petitioner Versus Sohan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance. Defendants No. 1 to 6 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 30.11.2009. The said defendants moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against them. Vide the impugned order, dated 3.3.2011, the trial Court allowed the application and set aside the ex parte proceedings against defendants No.1 to 6. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The plea of defendants No.1 to 6, while seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings against them, was that the case had been transferred from one Court to another and due to this reason Civil Revision No.3068 of 2011 2 they could not follow up the proceedings. It has been noticed by the trial Court in the impugned order that defendants No.1 to 6 were proceeded ex parte on 30.11.2009 as they had failed to appear despite the fact that the summons had been sent to them through registered post and a period of more than 30 days had elapsed. However, keeping in view the interest of justice, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by defendants No.1 to 6 subject to payment of ` 1,000/- as costs. Vide the impugned order, defendants No.1 to 6 have been allowed to appear and put up their case. In this way, the dispute between the parties will be disposed of on merits. The impugned order, thus, does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 09, 2011 anita