IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 08-01-2009 Kirpal Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Joginder Ram & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate, for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 15-02-2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 02-05-2002, has been dismissed; and for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30-08-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal against the order dated 15-02-2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala has been dismissed. Joginder Ram, plaintiff/respondent filed suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner and other defendants where the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.3. Due to the non-appearance of his counsel, petitioner was proceeded C.R. No.4 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ex-parte and judgment/decree dated 02-05-2002 was passed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dated 09-05-2002 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment/decree dated 02-05-2002. The learned trial court after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala for setting aside the impugned order 15-02-2005 which has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 30-08-2008. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this revision petition and it deserves to be dismissed. From perusal of both the impugned orders, it is clear that the petitioner himself had conceded that he has no concern with the suit land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain or refute this admission made on part of the petitioner. Dismissed. (JASWANT SINGH) January 08, 2009 JUDGE ashish