C.R. No. 7792 of 2010 (O&M) ` 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7792 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1.12.2010. Darshan Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Satwant Singh Mehta ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) The petitioners, who were defendants in the suit filed by the respondent appeared, participated in the proceedings for some time before committing a default of not appearing before the Court leading to the passing of an adverse order against them. In the impugned orders, it has been mentioned that on 16.10.2002 the petitioner No. 1 was served and the file was taken up on 17.10.2002 since the Presiding Officer was on leave. Petitioner No. 1 Darshan Singh was proceeded against ex-parte and notice was issued to petitioner No. 2 for 6.11.2002. Subsequent thereto one Shri Ashok Gill, Advocate, represented both the petitioners and submitted that he would file his power of attorney on 28.11.2002 which was the next date for him on which date on the joint statements of counsel for the parties, an interim order was passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo regarding alienation of suit property till the time the written statement was filed. Written statement was ordered to be filed on 9.12.2002 but since the same was not done the matter was adjourned to 17.12.2002 on which date again no written statement was filed and the counsel representing the petitioners filed his memo of appearance on their behalf. Subsequently, the petitioners defaulted and like-wise their counsel also did not appear. Fresh notice was issued to them for 14.2.2003 on which date they were served but again they did not come present. It was in this backdrop that they were proceeded ex-parte and subsequently the matter was adjourned repeatedly C.R. No. 7792 of 2010 (O&M) ` 2 granting time to plaintiff/respondents to lead their evidence and the suit was ultimately decreed on 18.3.2004. After inviting an ex-parte decree against them, the petitioners moved an application for setting aside the decree dated 18.3.2004, on 26.2.2005 which application was declined by the Court vide its order dated 27.5.2008 after the evidence in this regard had been led by the respective parties and issues to that effect were framed. In appeal, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on this regard was affirmed. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were never served but no such material has been shown to the Court from where it can be inferred that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is correct and merits acceptance. The facts which have been detailed aforesaid have not been effectively controverted by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is apparent that the petitioners invited an ex-parte decree against them and then moved application for setting it aside in order to subvert process of law. The bonafide of the petitioners being manifestly absent the Court was right in declining the prayer made by them. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and also does not find any error of jurisdiction which would warrant the interference of this Court in a revision. No ground to interfere in the impugned orders is made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 1.12.2010 JUDGE Reema