Civil Rev. 125 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 125 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.9.2009 Kapil Kumar Petitioner vs Raj Kumar Respondent Present Mr. BD Sharma, Advocate Mr. RC Dogra, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide impugned order dated 18.11.2008, an application under Order 9 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the defendant- petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that he had been served for 26.11.2005 by Munadi, which was duly effected. The trial court has observed that as the defendant wanted to delay the proceedings in one way or another, the ex- parte proceedings dated 26.11.2005 against him cannot be set aside. I do not find any reason to arrive at a different conclusion regarding the negligence and mala fide of the petitioner regarding his intention to delay the proceedings but taking into consideration the principle of fair trial, which is the basis of procedural laws, it is deemed appropriate to give an opportunity to the defendant- petitioner to contest the suit of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2.7.2004 pertaining to 24 kanals 16 marlas of land, belonging to the defendant- petitioner. The defendant- petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 26.11.2005 and he had filed an application in the year 2008. The petitioner can be permitted to Civil Rev. 125 of 2009 2 contest the petition by setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, making him liable to pay adequate costs to respondents 1 and 2. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the ex-parte proceedings dated 26.11.2005 against the defendant- petitioner will be set aside subject to his paying Rs.15000/- as costs to plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2. The parties will appear before the trial court on 3.10.2009 or on the date, fixed before the trial court, which ever is earlier and the defendant will pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff- respondents 1 and 2. In case of non payment of costs, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. It is also made clear that in case the defendant- petitioner adopts delaying tactics during pendency of the case after setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings, it will be open to the trial court to pass any prejudicial order against the petitioner, in accordance with law. September 1 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE