CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on :25.11.2009 Jugraj Singh & others ... Petitioners versus Smt. Manjit Kaur ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the ld. Lower Appellate Court as well as of the Trial Court declining application under order 9 Rule 13. The case set up is that the matter is fixed for 13.11.2001 and it was only on that date the applicant (defendant in the main suit) did not appear and immediately thereafter on 01.12.2001, he was declared ex parte and the suit was decreed; and within a period of three months the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment had been filed. It is further prayed that decretal amount has already been deposited and in fact the CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M) -2- same has been withdrawn by the respondent. Learned counsel has argued that keeping in mind the protracted limitation and the fact that petitioner-defendant had appeared on each and every date (as has been found by the Courts below themselves) it was not a case where the application under Order 9 Rule 13 should have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent has on the other hand defended the order saying that the conduct of the petitioner reveals that he was aware of the fact that the case was fixed for 13.11.2001 and that there was no justification shown for his absence. In my opinion, in the circumstances of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice if the ex parte judgment is set aside and the applicant is permitted to contest the suit. There is no doubt that the petitioner was aware of the date fixed but his absence could not be held so culpable so as to disentitle him even from defending the suit. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 is allowed. The judgment and decree dt. 01.12.2001 is also set aside and the ld. Trial Court is directed to decide the case as per law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the ld. Trial Court on 30.11.2009. It is made clear that this order would operate only if the petitioner pays cost of Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent by way of bank draft to be handed over on the date fixed. In case this payment is not made, this petition would stand dismissed without further CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M) -3- reference to this court. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. November 25, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE