Civil Revision No.1624 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1624 of 2010 Date of decision : 12-07-2010 Raj Gaba .... Petitioner VERSUS Jagdish Sahai Mathur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) On 17.04.2009, petitioner – defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, Court examined one witness of the plaintiff and for remaining evidence, case was adjourned to 15.05.2009. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that plaintiff's evidence has been concluded. An application was filed on 4.12.2009 praying that the order whereby petitioner – defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte be recalled and petitioner be permitted to join the proceedings. It was stated that petitioner was under impression that her counsel will watch her interest but to the detriment of the petitioner, counsel has not caused appearance on Civil Revision No.1624 of 2010 -2- 17.04.2009. It is further stated that in the impugned order whereby application for recalling the ex parte order was dismissed it has been wrongly recorded that counsel for defendant No.2 closed the evidence and the case was adjourned to 17.12.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte on 17.04.2009, his counsel could not hvae closed evidence on 17.04.2009. Counsel states that the trial Court has not applied its mind. Counsel further states that the impugned order reflects non-application of the mind of the trial Court. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that fair play, equity demand that petitioner – defendant No.2 ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend the suit. At this juncture, Sh. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 has stated that unnecessary delay has been caused and the plaintiff had concluded its evidence. Sh. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner states that in case, petitioner – plaintiff and his witnesses are called and one opportunity is afforded to cross-examine then it will serve the interest of all. This Court is of the view that order dated 17.04.2009 ought to be set aside and petitioner – defendant No.2 be afforded an opportunity to join the proceedings especially in view of the fact that the trial Court has stated that petitioner can be allowed to join further proceedings. Thus order dated 17.04.2.2009 is set aside. On the next date of hearing, plaintiff shall produce all witnesses already examined and counsel for the petitioner – defendant No.2 shall be allowed to cross-examine them. Thereafter, Civil Revision No.1624 of 2010 -3- suit will proceed further. Since due to the conduct of the petitioner, respondents have been put to hardship, for which some cost ought to be awarded. This Court is of the opinion that after taking entire gamut of the case in view, cost of Rs.20,000/- will be justifiable. On payment of Rs.20,000/- as cost by petitioner, the trial Court shall proceed in the manner enumerated above. The petition is disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 12-07-2010 JUDGE manju