IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6389 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.10.2010 Tarsem Kaur and another. ....... Petitioners. Versus Jaswant Singh and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the caveator. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside orders Annexures P2 and P5 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the caveator, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The defence of petitioner no.2 was struck off in the year 2009. The application for setting aside that order was moved after five months. C.R.No.6389 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... The only ground that has been urged before this Court for the said lapse is that there was lack of communication and the counsel for the petitioners did not inform them about the passing of such an order. The petitioners are litigating with the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for a long period of time and one of the bouts of litigation had gone up to the Supreme Court and it is not expected of them that they would be lax in prosecuting the instant case, more-so when it pertained to the same property and also that other co-sharers, who had been arrayed as defendants in the suit, are contesting the suit. The petitioners being co-sharers with other co- defendants, would obviously be expected to know of the dispute, especially when the suit property had been subjected to litigation spread over two decades. The plea is, therefore, not inspiring enough for this Court to be considered. The only redeeming feature in the case of the petitiones is that the suit is still at the initial stage where the evidence is yet to commence. Therefore, keeping in view purely this aspect of the matter and in the interest of justice and also considering the fact that equitable justice can be done by compensating the other side, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and permit the petitioners to join the proceedings by filing written statement within one week from today. No further indulgence shall be shown to them under any circumstance and in the event of their failure to file written statement within the stipulated period, the impugned order shall stand revived. To ensure equitable justice to the plaintiff-respondent no.1, the C.R.No.6389 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him as compensatory costs. The instant revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties on payment of usual charges. October 06,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge