CR No. 3855 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3855 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.8.2010 Pardeep Kumar Chaudhary .....Petitioner Versus Suraj Bhan and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Middha, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 22.5.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings initiated against defendant No.1 on 5.3.2009 (the present petitioner), was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 10.2.2005 and also challenged the sale executed by defendant No.1 (the present petitioner) in favour of defendant No.2 on 10.4.2006. In the said suit, the petitioner was served by substituted service after the registered envelope returned back unserved. The petitioner was proceeded exparte vide order dated CR No. 3855 of 2010 (O&M) [2] 5.3.2009. The petitioner moved an application seeking setting aside of the said ex-parte proceedings. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application, inter-alia, on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown by defendant No.1 in the application to seek setting aside of exparte proceedings. It was found that the conduct of the petitioner is indicative of the fact that he was watching the proceedings from the outside and when the case reached at the final sage, the application has been filed to hamper the process of the Court. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court shows that Munadi was effected in village Shekhpura, where the property is located. It is the case of the defendant that he is residing at 54-C Sanik Form House, New Delhi and, therefore, he was not aware of the proceedings. The Court held that in fact, the address mentioned by the petitioner is that of the village and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that it would be in the interest of justice if the defendant-petitioner is permitted to contest the suit so as to allow the parties to contest the suit on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner was served by Munadi, which is a deemed service. Once, the petitioner has filed an application for setting aside of the exparte proceedings, the petitioner should have been permitted to contest the suit, may be on payment of costs. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, is the material party as he has purportedly entered into agreement with the plaintiff and has executed sale deed in favour of the defendant. His presence in the suit will facilitate the just decision by the trial Court. In view of the said fact, the order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The exparte proceedings initiated against the petitioner are set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The costs shall be paid on 20.9.2010 i.e. the date on which the CR No. 3855 of 2010 (O&M) [3] parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court, for further proceedings, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also file his written statement on the said date. Failure to file the written statement and/or to pay costs, would disentitle the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 30.8.2010 ds