Civil Revision No. 5723 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5723 of 2011 Date of decision : September 20, 2011 Sidhima Garg ....Petitioner versus ING Life Insurance Company Limited and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Sidhima Garg has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 23.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh thereby allowing application of the defendants-respondents for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings ordered against them on 22.4.2010. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 22.4.2010 and the case was adjourned to 12.6.2010 for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff. However, file was taken up by the trial court on 11.6.2010 because Presiding Officer was to remain on leave on 12.6.2010 and the case was adjourned to 31.8.2010. On 31.8.2010, one witness of the plaintiff was Civil Revision No. 5723 of 2011 -2- examined and no other evidence was present and the case was adjourned to 18.11.2010 for remaining ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff. In between defendants moved application on 20.9.2010 for setting aside ex-parte proceedings against them. The said application has been allowed by trial court vide impugned order dated 23.8.2011 subject to payment of Rs 1000/- as costs to the plaintiff and also Rs 500/- in Legal Aid Fund. The said order has been challenged by the plaintiff by filing of instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that defendants were proceeded ex-parte because they did not appear inspite of service. It was also contended that even after moving application on 20.9.2010 none appeared for the defendants on many subsequent dates of hearing in the suit and therefore, the application should not have been allowed. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. The plaintiff herself did not lead any ex-parte evidence after application was moved by defendants on 20.9.2010 although case was fixed for many dates of hearing for evidence as per zimini orders of the trial Court reproduced in the revision petition. It is well settled that normally a lis should be decided on merits and not by default. The trial Court in the impugned order has taken correct view by setting aside ex-parte proceedings against defendants on payment of costs. The plaintiff in her ex-parte evidence had examined only one witness and she has been duly Civil Revision No. 5723 of 2011 -3- compensated by payment of Rs 1000/- as costs. There is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity or lack of jurisdiction in impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, the impugned order is fully justified and the plaintiff-petitioner has been compensated by way of costs. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 20, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'