IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3272 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Banwari Lal … Petitioner versus Manmohan Soni ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner was the defendant in the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, titled Manmohan Soni v. Banwari Lal. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 9.3.2010. He filed an application on 24.4.2010 under Order 9 rule 13 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the said ex-parte judgment and decree. During the pendency of the same, another application was moved for staying the operation of the ex-parte judgment and decree, which has been declined vide impugned order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Abohar. Hence, this revision. Heard. From the perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree are moving at a snail’s pace whereas the execution proceedings are in progress. Once possession of the suit property is given, the very purpose of the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree would be frustrated which may prejudice the present petitioner. Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner undertakes to conclude the entire evidence on the dates already fixed, i.e. 10th and 11th of June, 2011. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Court C.R. No. 3272 of 2011 -2- concerned to record and conclude evidence of the petitioner on those dates and then proceed further to dispose of the application under Order 9 rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, within two months thereafter. Meanwhile, to avoid further complication and multiple litigation, the execution proceedings and dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 23, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE