Civil Revision No. 1481 of 2008 (1) In the High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1481 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.5.2009 Bhagwanti and others ... Petitioners vs Punjab State Electricity Board and another ... Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr. D. R. Singla and Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok S. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 21 for rehearing of appeal, which was decided ex-parte, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 23,531/- against Jit Singh (deceased) now represented through his LRs which was dismissed by the trial court on 19.5.2003. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred appeal before the learned court below which was decided ex-parte on 2.8.2004. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC for rehearing of the appeal. The same was dismissed vide impugned order passed on 19.1.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 9.6.2004, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, the case was adjourned and by mistake the counsel for the petitioners before the court below noted the same as 15.9.2004. However, the appeal was decided prior thereto in the absence of the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts, as the cause shown by the petitioners was sufficient, the appeal which was decided ex-parte should have been reheard. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were fully aware of the proceedings in the appeal. They had admittedly appeared on 15.6.2004 when the case was adjourned to 27.7.2004 on which date the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte and the appeal was finally decided on 2.8.2004. The cause shown by the petitioners for not appearing on the date when they were proceeded ex-parte is not justifiable. Accordingly, no fault as such can be found with the impugned order. Civil Revision No. 1481 of 2008 (2) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioners have not been able to produce on record any evidence to show that wrong date was noted by the counsel. Only photocopies of the brief and entry in the diary have been proved as Mark-A, Mark-B and Mark-C which were not confronted to the witness in the evidence and the documents were not exhibited. Even application subsequently filed for permission to exhibit was also dismissed. Once the petitioners had not been able to prove on record that the cause for non-appearance on the date when the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte in the appeal, was sufficient, no fault as such can be found with the impugned order whereby the application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC was dismissed. Another factor which is relevant in the present petition is that the dispute is only with regard to meager amount of Rs. 23,531/-. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 7.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge