C.R. No. 3577 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 3577 of 2008 Date of decision: February 25,2009 Haryana Khadi Gram Udyog Board ..Petitioner Versus Om Parkash and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the respondent ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,. The defendant has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 6.6.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside ex. parte order dated 17.12.2007 has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the revision petition,the civil court issued notice to the defendant/petitioner for appearance on 17.12.2007. He engaged a counsel to appear but on 17.12.2007, the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave. The said counsel conveyed the fact that as on 17.12.2007, the Presiding Officer of the court was on leave and accordingly, the next date shall be conveyed. However, it transpired later on that the petitioner had been proceeded ex parte and accordingly, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.12.2007. The court of Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Jind vide impugned order dated 6.6.2008,held that the Presiding Officer of the Court was not on leave and dismissed the aforesaid application observing that a palpably wrong plea has been made in the application which is supported with a wrong C.R. No. 3577 of 2008 2 affidavit, which is against the record. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case has referred to an order dated 18.12.2007 passed in another suit titled as Parveen Versus Prem Kumar and another, where the same Presiding Officer has passed an order stating that he was on leave on 17.12.2007 and has thus argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed on incorrect facts. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is satisfied that on 17.12.2007, for which date the summons were received by the petitioner, the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave and in fact the impugned order was passed by the Presiding Officer on the subsequent date i.e., on 18.12.2007. Keeping in view this fact alone, the order dated 18.12.2007 is set aside and the trial court may pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner a fresh. Revision Petition stands disposed of. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.3.2009. February 25, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE