IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 4891 of 2007. Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2008. Shashi Kumar ..Petitioner through Mr.Surneder Dhull, Advocate Versus Rajinder Mohan & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. I.S.Gill, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14th August, 2007 vide which an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC moved by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 1st August, 2005 whereby he was proceeded against ex-parte, has been dismissed. [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [3]. The first respondent filed a suit for declaration on 29th April, 2004 to the effect that he along with the defendants is joint owner in possession of the suit property. In the said civil suit, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.1 and while full description of his Bangalore address was given, he was, however, impleaded through his Attorney – one Bhupinder Chaudhary. The said Bhupinder Chaudhary was also impleaded as defendant No.2. The Civil Revision No.4891 of 2007. ::-2-:: attorney of the petitioner is stated to have received notice in the suit on 29th April, 2004 itself and thereafter he filed a written statement on behalf of the petitioner as well as on his behalf on 4th June, 2004. On 1st August, 2005, however, the said Bhupinder Chaudhary did not appear before the learned trial Court, though the case was called repeatedly at different intervals. As a result thereto, the learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner as well as the said Bhupinder Chaudhary. [4]. On 21st May, 2007 the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex-parte proceedings, inter-alia, on the ground that it was on 17th April, 2007 that he was informed by his counsel – Shri Rattan Singh, Advocate, engaged in a criminal case, that one Ajay Sharma, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner in the suit and that neither the said counsel nor the attorney of the petitioner later on appeared in the civil suit. [5]. The afore-stated application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order, though the petitioner has been permitted to join the proceedings from the present stage. [6]. Aggrieved, he has filed the present revision petition. [7]. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. [8]. It is the conceded position that the petitioner resides in Bangalore whereas the suit has been filed at Kaithal (Haryana). It is also not in dispute that no notice was sent to the petitioner at his Bangalore address and in fact he has been impleaded through his Civil Revision No.4891 of 2007. ::-3-:: attorney, namely, Bupinder Chaudhary only who had accepted the notice on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance appears to be that his attorney in whose favour General Power of Attorney was executed by him to dispose of a part of the property and/or to represent him wherever required, had allegedly connived with the respondent-plaintiff and did not appear before the Civil Court on 1st August, 2005 or thereafter. [9]. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff accused the petitioner of causing deliberate delay in adjudication of the civil suit. [10]. It is argued that as per the averments made by the petitioner himself in para no. 9 of Criminal Misc. No. 47658-M of 2004 which he had filed in this Court in the year 2004, the petitioner had full knowledge of the pendency of the present civil suit, therefore, his plea that he came to know only on 17th April, 2007 regarding the ex-parte proceedings stands totally falsified being an after-thought. [11]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the ex-parte proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. The petitioner is admittedly a permanent resident of Bangalore and it is not the case of the respondent-plaintiff that notice was ever served upon him personally but he chose to appear through attorney. On the other hand, notice was served upon the petitioner's attorney only. The petitioner's allegation that his attorney connived with the plaintiff, requires consideration in this back-drop. Insofar as admission of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.47658-M of 2004 is concerned, suffice it to say that the said averment acknowledges the pendency of the civil suit Civil Revision No.4891 of 2007. ::-4-:: and not the ex-parte proceedings which is a subsequent event only. On the contrary, the case of the petitioner is that his Attorney kept on misleading him regarding the status of the civil suit and it is only on 17th April, 2007 that he came to know about the ex-parte proceedings. [12]. Otherwise also, the Court's endeavour should be to decide a lis on merits instead of shutting of the doors on any technicalities. No legal right of such a high magnitude, which if taken away, would cause any serious prejudice to him, has accrued in favour of the plaintiff due to mere start of ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner, more so when he can be suitably compensated with costs. Similarly, the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff that the petitioner wants to delay the adjudication of the civil suit, can also be effectively addressed by granting only limited opportunities to the petitioner. [13]. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 14th August, 2007 is set aside and while accepting the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the ex-parte proceedings initiated against him on 1st August, 2005 are set aside, however, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the respondent-plaintiff. In addition, the following time schedule shall be adhered to by the learned trial Court:- i] only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement and in case he fails to file his reply, no further opportunity shall be granted to him for that purpose; Civil Revision No.4891 of 2007. ::-5-:: ii] if the petitioner wants to cross-examine any of the witnesses already examined by the plaintiff, they may be summoned for one day and the petitioner shall be granted only one opportunity to cross-examine them; iii] not more than two opportunities shall be granted to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility. [14]. Disposed of. April 23, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE