Civil Revision No.2329 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2329 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.04.2009 Raj Mohinder Singh @ Simple ......Petitioner VERSUS Ajit Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J(ORAL): This is defendant's revision petition, challenging the order dated 06.03.2009 whereby costs of Rs.10,000/- were imposed while setting aside ex-parte proceedings dated 15.06.2006 passed against him and he was allowed to file written statement and the case was adjourned to 02.04.2009 for filing written statement and for making payment of the costs. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the costs imposed upon the petitioner are arbitrary and very heavy, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent of payment of costs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the revision petition. Undisputedly, the petitioner was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.06.2006 and the impugned order was passed, ordering the setting aside of aforesaid ex-parte order on a concession made by the plaintiff and the petitioner was allowed to file written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. Counsel for Civil Revision No.2329 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the petitioner states that the costs are heavy and petitioner is unable to pay the same. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2009 by filing the revision petition in the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed on 11.04.2009, being not maintainable and thereafter the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner in this Court. Inspite of the fact that vide impugned order, it was stated that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for filing written statement after 02.04.2009 yet it is admitted that till date, no written statement has been filed by the petitioner and instead of filing the written statement and paying the costs, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the aforesaid order by first approaching the District Judge and thereafter this Court. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order dated 06.03.2009, passed by the Trial Court. The revision petition is dismissed. April 28, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) mamta-II JUDGE Civil Revision No.2329 of 2009 (O&M) 3