C. R. No. 7528 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7528 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 10, 2010 State of Haryana and others .... Appellants Vs. Jagdish Parsad and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Respondents no.2, 23 and 62 are reported to have died, whereas respondents no.7, 28, 46, 48 and 67 are reported to be not residing at the given address. However, all the remaining respondents have been served, but no one is appearing for them. All respondents, being plaintiffs, have common interest and are represented by same counsel in the lower court. Most of the respondents have been served. Accordingly, as prayed for, service of unserved respondents mentioned above is dispensed with. This is revision petition by defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 31.07.2009 and order dated 12.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. Vide order dated 31.07.2009, defendants no.2 to 5 were proceeded ex-parte, as no one appeared for them. Thereafter, C. R. No. 7528 of 2009 2 defendant no.2 moved application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and defendants no.4 and 5 filed separate application for setting aside order of ex-parte proceedings against them. Both the said applications have been dismissed by the trial court vide second impugned order dated 12.11.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. In so far as defendant no.1/petitioner no.1 (State of Haryana) is concerned, it was never proceeded ex-parte. In so far as defendant no.3/petitioner no.3 (Estate Officer, HUDA) is concerned, no application on his behalf was moved in the trial court for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, ordered on 31.07.2009. Thus, petitioner no.2/defendant no.4 and petitioner no.4/defendant no.5 are left. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even the plaintiffs did not contest the application moved by defendants no.4 and 5 (petitioners no.2 and 4), but inspite thereof, the trial court dismissed their application. It is correct that the respondents/plaintiffs did not contest the application moved by defendants no.4 and 5. However, it has to be noticed that State of Haryana/defendant no.1 was being represented by Government Pleader even on 31.07.2009, when defendants no.2 to 5 were proceeded ex- parte, but the Government Pleader did not get his presence recorded on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5, although the order of proceeding ex-parte against them also was passed in his presence. The application was moved, when defendant no.1 failed to lead evidence and by moving application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5, the suit was sought to be prolonged by availing of further opportunity to lead evidence. The trial court has dismissed the application moved by defendants no.4 and 5 for these reasons. These reasons cannot be said to be unjustified. However, inspite thereof, the ends of justice would be met if ex-parte proceedings against defendants no.4 and 5 are set aside on payment of cost because the suit has not yet concluded. C. R. No. 7528 of 2009 3 For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 31.07.2009 and 12.11.2009 are set aside in so far as defendants no.4 and 5 i.e. petitioners no.2 and 4 herein are concerned and accordingly, ex-parte proceedings against defendants no.4 and 5 are set aside, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. February 10, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE