CR No.2347 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2347 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: April 06, 2011. Jaan Mohd. Etc. .. Petitioners VERSUS Safed Khan and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs-petitioners had obtained an ex parte decree dated 11.12.2007, after the defendants-respondents did not appear before the Court w.e.f., October 3, 2006, despite service. Vide impugned order dated 10.03.2011, the ex parte judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners has been set . . . 1 CR No.2347 of 2011 (O&M) aside. It is not out of place to observe here that the petitioners have obtained an ex parte decree to the effect that they have become owners of landed property in dispute being occupancy tenants having acquired the statutory right of ownership. Counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners has contended that the lower appellate Court has wrongly set aside the ex parte judgment and decree vide impugned order as the respondents had been negligent in appearing before the Court and that they were responsible for delaying the proceedings. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and considering the nature of the litigation pending inter se the parties, it appears that in view of the high stakes involved regarding ownership of the land on the basis of occupation, a fair opportunity should have been provided by the lower Court to permit the defendants- respondents to contest the claim of the plaintiffs-petitioners claiming that their status is that of Gair Marusi for the last 30 years. The trial Court has rightly provided a fair opportunity to the defendants- respondents to contest the claim of the plaintiffs-petitioners but the only defect in the impugned order passed by the Courts below is that no costs has been imposed on the defendants-respondents. It is ordered that the plaintiffs-petitioners will be entitled to costs of ` 5,000/-. The impugned order is modified to that extent. The petitioners are entitled to the costs for the harassment caused to them on account of casual approach of the defendants-respondents in appearing before the Court to contest the claim of the plaintiffs- . . . 2 CR No.2347 of 2011 (O&M) petitioners. This revision petition has been disposed of in limine in order to avoid the delay and the unnecessary expenses which would have been incurred by the defendants-respondents in putting in appearance before this Court after engaging a counsel. In the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this revision petition upholding the impugned order but with a slight modification that the plaintiffs-petitioners will be entitled to costs of ` 5,000/- in case the petitioners move an application before the trial Court. The said costs will be allowed to them for setting aside of ex parte proceedings and the judgment and decree. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 06, 2011. rka . . . 3