C.R No. 5734 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 5734 of 2009 Decided On : 07.10.2009 Smt. Alvina and others ...Petitioners versus The Church of North India Trust Association ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 18.08.2009, whereby an application for restoration of the application for setting aside of ex parte decree, was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession. In the said suit the defendant was proceeded ex parte. An ex parte decree was granted by the learned trial Court on 18.11.2000. An application for setting aside such ex parte decree was dismissed in default on 24.04.2002 when none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. An application for restoration was filed on 16.08.2003. It is the said application which has been dismissed C.R No. 5734 of 2009 -2- by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in the present petition. It has been found that the petitioner was well acquainted with the date given to the defendant in proceedings on his application, but he did not intentionally appeared before the Court. It was also found that the period of limitation to seek restoration of such an application, will run from 24.04.2002 and therefore, the application is grossly delayed. Normally the Court is liberal in setting aside the ex parte proceedings and the decree, but the present is a case where the defendant is in occupation of the Church property and is intentionally delaying the proceedings so as to continue with the possession. The contumacious conduct of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that though an ex parte decree was granted on 18.11.2000, but the petitioner has been successful in delaying the proceedings on one pretext or the other for almost nine years. During the course of hearing, it was suggested to the petitioner that his application for setting aside the ex parte decree can be considered, provided that the defendants' hand over the possession to the petitioner subject to the rights of the parties to be determined in trial. However, the petitioner states that the legal heirs of defendant are residing in the house and therefore, handing over the possession is not possible. From the above, it is apparent that the sole attempt of the petitioner is to delay the finality of the proceedings so as to C.R No. 5734 of 2009 -3- continue with the possession. The petitioner cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law. The order passed by the Courts below cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or unjust, which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. OCTOBER 07, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE