Civil Revision No.6218 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6218 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.1.2010 Charanjeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Angoori Devi and others ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner whose plea for setting aside of the exparte proceedings was declined by the learned Trial Court, is one of the six partners of a partnership concern which (concern), along with all partners, is being sued by respondent No.1 Smt. Angoori Devi, proprietor, M/s Narsi Dass Yuvraj Commission Agent for the recovery of Rs.8,72,908.34 paise. The suit is being contested by the other partners. However, exparte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner herein. It is through him that the partnership concern had been sued by the respondent-plaintiff. He was a party to the suit in his individual capacity as well. The sole plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the effecting of Munadi on 14.5.2004 qua the petitioner was apparently farce in view of the fact that he was out of the country on that date. In support of the averment aforementioned, Civil Revision No.6218 of 2008 -2- **** learned Senior Counsel invites the attention of this Court to certain endorsement on his passport which are to the effect that petitioner herein left the country on 3.5.2004 and returned to India on 21.5.2004. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, argues that plea raised for setting aside the exparte proceedings is farcical and malafide on the face of it in view of the fact that the other partners of the firm are contesting the suit and the pendency of the suit was to be noticed. It is apparent from the record that other partners of the firm are indeed contesting the suit and exparte proceedings have been ordered only against the petitioner herein. A plea raised by him that the other partners did not bring the pendency of suit to his notice on account of estranged relations interse is apparently farcical and incorrect because the averment to that effect has not been substantiated on record by adducing any evidence to that effect. It would also require pertinent notice in the context that other partners are not expected to benefit by the absence of the petitioner from the trial. If the suit ultimately comes to be decreed, the liability would be that of the firm and also of the partners. In that view of things, it can fairly be expected that the other partners would have been interested in intimating the pendency of the suit to the petitioner herein as well who is proved to have been away from the country only for a duration which was of short character. In the light of foregoing discussion, I find nothing wrong in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. January 11,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE