CR No. 7193 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7193 of 2008 Decided on : 24-12-2008 Om Parkash . ...Petitioner VERSUS Roop Chand ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. J.C.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the District Judge, Panchkula by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.7.2007 which has been dismissed. An ex parte decree in a suit for specific performance was passed against the petitioner on 15.9.2000. The respondent had preferred a suit for specific performance seeking to enforce the agreement to sell dated 10.5.89 in his favour. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 16.9.1997 as no one had appeared in the Court on his behalf despite service. An application for setting aside this ex parte order dated 16.9.1997 was filed by the petitioner on 10.6.99 which was accepted. He was again proceeded ex parte on 21.9.99 which ultimately led to the passing of the ex parte decree on CR No. 7193 of 2008 2 15.9.2000. An application was moved on 15.1.2001 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree which was dismissed in default on 22.11.2003 as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 3.1.2004 an application bearing date of 2.1.2004 was filed for restoration of the application dated 22.11.2003 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. This application was also dismissed in default on 22.7.2005. Another application was moved on 22.8.2005 for restoration of the application dated 3.1.2004 and 23.7.2005 which was declined by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 21.7.2007. An appeal against this was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he was not at fault and since his counsel did not appear, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the fault of the counsel. Besides it was contended that the suit initially was against two persons namely Smt. Jayanti and Om Parkash, the petitioner and it was noticed by the learned Trial Court during the course of the proceedings that Smt. Jayanti has expired. She was the principal who had executed a general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and in this view of the matter, the ex parte decree requiring him to execute the sale deed cannot be maintained as the executor of general power of attorney having expired, the rights of the petitioner which came into existence on the basis of the power of attorney stood extinguished. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The conduct of the petitioner is not only irresponsible but is reprehensible. The facts as noticed above show that he has deliberately abused the process of law despite being shown repeated indulgence. As such, his attempts at best can be termed to be malicious as he was never serious in putting up his side of the defence, but was merely interested in prolonging the proceedings CR No. 7193 of 2008 3 for which he deployed the tactics of performing the vanishing trick at his own will. His attempts, therefore, at this stage to revive the suit by getting the ex parte decree set aside can at best be termed to be absurd. A person who approaches the Court must establish his credibility and bona fides and if the same stand eroded by his own conduct, then the equitable relief which such a person seeks becomes elusive and the same necessarily has to be declined to him. As noticed above in the fore-going paragraphs, the petitioner has played hide and seek with the Court in an attempt to delay the matter thereby burdening the Court with unnecessary and unwarranted proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. December 24 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge