IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6581 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.10.2010 Subhash. ....... Petitioner. Versus Smt.Anju and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. There is no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner invited an ex parte decree against himself. He had been regularly appearing till the time when the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. was decided and thereafter for no justifiable reasons, he defaulted and moved an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree after six months,but the Court below, finding no cogent explanation for non-appearance, dismissed the same. Before this Court also, no explanation has been furnished as to why the petitioner defaulted in appearance. The judgment and decree were C.R. No.6581 of 2010 -2- .... passed in the year 2007 and, therefore, to put the clock back, would not be justified in the given set of circumstances when the petitioner failed to offer any cogent reason for his non-appearance which could be made basis for condonation thereof. There is, thus, no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. October 08,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge