Civil Revision No. 5343 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5343 of 2008 Date of decision : 26.2.2010 Manoj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Gurnam Kaur Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 & 2 S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner herein applies for invalidation of the order dated 17.9.2008 vide which the learned Trial Court, in allowance of a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the respondent, ordered the setting aside of the exparte decree dated 17.12.2004, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. It is apparent from the record that expart order came about when a counsel representing defendant-respondent pleaded want of instructions and the Court proceeded to grant an exparte decree against the party represented by her. Learned Trial Court held that. in circumstances of the case, notice had to be compulsively issued to the defendant. The view obtained by the learned Trial Court is in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Malkiat Singh Civil Revision No. 5343 of 2008 -2- *** and another Vs. Joginder Singh and others (1998-1) the Punjab Law Reporter 271. In that case too, the counsel representing defendants had pleaded want of instructions. The Court did not issue any notice to the party represented by that learned counsel and diposed of the case against that party. The Apex Court, relying upon its earlier judgment in Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others Vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and antoher (1993) Supp. S.C.C. 2146, held that the trial Court did not act correctly in the matter and that Trial Court ought to have issued a notice to the absentee party. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to invite my attention to any law to the contrary. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 26, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE