Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27th,2011 Yash Pal and another .... Petitioners Versus Satbir .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The plaintiffs have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 9.9.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, whereby the order proceeding ex-parte against Satbir, defendant-respondent, has been set-aside subject to payment of Rs.100/- as costs. In the suit brought by the petitioners for permanent injunction, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on 25.4.2011. Claiming that his absence on the said day was neither intentional nor deliberate, the defendant applied for setting-aside the said order and for permission to join the proceedings of the case. Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2011 2 .. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the same has been filed just to delay the proceedings of the case and was prayed to be dismissed. Keeping in view the fundamental principles of natural justice that no party should be condemned unheard, the trial Court had allowed the application setting aside the order dated 25.4.2001 and permitting the defendant to join the proceedings at that stage. I have heard Shri Navneet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. The law with regard to the setting aside of the order proceeding ex-parte against the defendant is very liberal. A defendant can join the proceedings of suit at any time without even making a formal application in this regard. The application is required when the defendant wants the order proceeding ex-parte to be set-aside. Difficulty would arise only in cases where the plaintiff has led voluminous evidence and the case has reached the stage of argument and it is found that the defendant has knowingly remained away from the proceedings and had deliberately come to the court at the fag end of the trial. This is, however, not the case here. Here, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.4.2011 and he has filed application for setting aside the same on 24.5.2011 and in the meanwhile, the suit had made no Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2011 3 .. progress. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is, consequently, found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 27th , 2011 som