Civil Revision No.5298 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5298 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Satish Kumar and another .....Petitioners v. Krishan Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23314-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record the zimni orders. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.21238-39 CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P4. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.5298 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 16.7.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, vide which application of the petitioners for setting aside ex parte proceedings dated 29.3.2010 was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by Civil Revision No.5298 of 2011(O&M) -2- learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that counsel could not appear due to noting of wrong date of hearing as instead of 29.3.2010, he noted down as 29.7.2010. Moreover, perusal of file shows that written statement was already filed on behalf of petitioner No.1- Satish Kumar on 12.12.2006 and thereafter, no proceeding had taken place in the present suit. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that no evidence was recorded so far in the present suit and hence, he is having right to join the proceedings at any stage. However, so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, written statement was not filed on his behalf, despite taking several opportunities. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.2 intends to adopt the written statement already filed by petitioner no.1 as they are having the same interest in the property in dispute. Hence, in view of these facts, the ex parte proceedings dated 29.3.2010 can be set aside and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. The present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Petitioners are permitted to join the proceedings subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge