Civil Revision No. 2857 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2857 of 2011 Date of Decision: 2.8.2011 *** Sunil Kumar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Desraj & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. A civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages/ compensation for demolition of the house was filed by respondent No.1,in the year 1994, against the present petitioners and others. The petitioners and others were proceeded against ex-parte on 23.10.1999 and the suit was decided on 28.2.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. By dint of order dated 27.8.2009 the said application was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by the appellate Court below by virtue of judgment dated 6.1.2011, leading to the institution of present civil revision. Heard. It is not in dispute that the petitiones initially appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. It is on 23.10.1999 when the case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff, neither they nor their counsel turned up and hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte. After about four months thereafter, the suit was decided. The plea taken by the petitioners is that since the proceedings in the criminal case against the parties, were stayed by this Court, they were under the impression that the proceedings in the suit also stayed and there is no necessity for them to appear therein. However, the said reason lacks merit. Only on this score the ex-parte order or judgment cannot be set aside. The onus was upon the petitioners to show Civil Revision No. 2857 of 2011 2 “sufficient cause' which prevented them from appearing in the case. Not only this, it is a matter of record that they were not party to the quashing petition filed before this Court wherein proceedings were stayed. Even otherwise, it was the civil suit and the presence of their counsel obviously will serve the purpose, but despite that their counsel did not turn up in the case and the petitioners did not bother to examine their counsel to show that their absence before the Court was under bonafide mistake. Both the Courts below, taking the aforesaid circumstances into consideration, concurrently held that the petitioners were having due notice of the suit, but they deliberately did not appear to contest the same. The findings of fact returned by both the Courts below need no interference by this Court. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 02, 2011 Jiten