Civil Revision No. 6630 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6630 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 01.11.2011 Smt. Saroj .... Petitioner Versus Aas Mohammad ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Smt. Saroj, defendant, has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.10.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nuh (Mewat), vide which her application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings has been dismissed. Aas Mohammad had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract of sale alongwith other relief against Smt. Saroj. In the said suit, the petitioner-defendant had been proceeded against ex-parte on 28.09.2010. She then applied for setting aside the ex- parte proceedings on 29.07.2011 when the case was pending for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff. The petitioner claimed that she was suffering from various ailments and was unable to walk and that she had been told by her counsel not to appear in the court on each and every date of Civil Revision No. 6630 of 2011 --2-- hearing. She, therefore, claimed that she was unable to get knowledge of the court proceeding ex-parte against her in time and came to know of the same only on 27.07.2011. Taking reply to the application, in which the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant remained absent willfully just to prolong the litigation and that she was watching the proceedings on each and every date of hearing, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order on the ground that the same has not been filed within limitation. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The limitation prescribed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for making application for setting aside ex-parte decree. There is no limitation prescribed for making application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. As I am told, the suit is still pending for ex- parte evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant could always come and join the proceedings without even seeking re-call of the proceedings conducted ex-parte against her. The petitioner is an old woman, who claims that she is suffering from various ailments. In the civil suit, the defendant is not required to appear on each and every date of hearing and this aspect could not have been lost sight of by learned trial court. Delay of 10 months in applying for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings is not such a delay which could be held sufficient for declining the relief. Civil Revision No. 6630 of 2011 --3-- In these circumstances, the impugned order is found suffering from illegality and the same cannot be sustained. The revision petition is consequently allowed. However for the delay of 10 months caused by the petitioner, the other party requires to be compensated. So she is burdened with Rs.2000/- as costs. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit from the stage at which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, in accordance with law. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 01.11.2011 JUDGE dinesh