IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.194 of 2011 Date of decision : June 27, 2011 Avinash Chopra …Petitioner. Versus Smt. Chandra Thaur and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Raghu Nandan Chaudhar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Deepak Gupta, J(Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th March, 2011, whereby the learned trial Court refused to set aside the order dated 17th January, 2006, by which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Smt. Chandra Thakur (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), who is an Advocate, filed a suit for recovery of `6,00,000/- as damages on account of defamation. The suit was filed against five persons. Pawan Thakur, respondent-defendant No.3, is the Correspondent of Punjab Kesari Newspaper and Avinash Chopra and Vijay Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Chopra are the Joint Editor and Chief Editor, respectively, of the said paper. The suit proceeded for five years and the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was filed only in July 2010. The reasons given in the application, to say the least, are not sufficient and the allegation of the petitioner that he did not refuse to accept the registered letter does not appear to be correct. The service is deemed to have been done properly. 3. It has been the experience of this Court in a number of cases that the Editor and the Joint Editor of Punjab Kesari have been using the gunmen deployed for their security to ward off the Process Servers and Postmen, when they go to deliver summons of this Court. In another proceedings, this Court had to get the summons affixed and only then they appeared. Normally, one would not have entertained such a petition at this belated stage, but in my view every party should be permitted to contest the suit on merits. 4. I have been informed at the bar that the case is now fixed for 2nd September, 2011 for the evidence of defendant-respondent Pawan Thakur, Correspondent of the Newspaper. The ex-parte proceedings are set aside, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein, who are close relatives, may, if they so desire, file a joint written statement before the trial Court, on or before 3rd August, 2011. Replication, if …3… any, by the plaintiff shall be filed by 10th August, 2011, on which date the learned trial Court shall frame additional issues, if any. In case the plaintiff wants to lead any further evidence, she can do so on 1st September, 2011 and the case shall be taken up on 2nd September, 2011 for the evidence of Pawan Thakur as well as the petitioner and Vijay Chopra. 2. This petition is allowed, subject to the payment of `10,000/- as costs. In case the costs are not paid or written statement not filed on or before 3rd August, 2011, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be given only two opportunities to lead evidence, i.e. one on 2nd September, 2011 and another as deemed fit and proper by the learned trial Court. No further opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court under any circumstances and the suit shall be disposed of latest by 31st May, 2012. The petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. June 27, 2011(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J