IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1414 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 Dalsher Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri Y.P.Malik, Advocate. Versus Meena and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri Atamjit S. Thind and Shri Rahul Deswal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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. C.M.Nos.23565-66 CII of 2010 The applications are allowed and Annexures A1 to A24 are taken on record. C.R.No.1414 of 2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order vide which his application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was rejected. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 11.2.2008 and the reason for not being present before the trial Court was that he had met with an accident and was 100% disabled. It was averred that the petitioner C.R.No.1414 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... came to know about the ex parte proceedings on 26.5.2008 and the application for setting aside order dated 11.2.2008 was filed on 22.7.2008, but the trial Court dismissed the same on the ground that it was moved beyond one month of the date of knowledge and that sufficient cause had not been shown for non-appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be granted only one opportunity to joint the proceedings keeping in view the fact that he had met with an accident and was 100% disabled which prevented him to appear before the trial Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present revision petition is merely an attempt to delay the proceedings as the petitioner fraudulently alienated the property which is subject - matter of the suit. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The trial Court declined the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order by which he was proceeded against ex parte merely on the ground that it was barred by delay, which was not so inordinate so as to prevent him from joining the proceedings. Besides, the petitioner has prima facie shown to this Court by placing on record Annexure P24 that he was 100% handicapped and on account of which he could not put in appearance before the trial Court. Having regard to the aforesaid, the revision petition is accepted, C.R.No.1414 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... the impugned order is set aside and as a result thereof, the petitioner shall be permitted to join the proceedings, but the trial Court shall ensure that he does not cause any untoward delay and no unusual indulgence is given to him by giving any unwarranted adjournment. The trial Court shall also make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings in the suit as expeditiously as possible. October 14,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge