IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.325/2009 Date of Decision:21.1.2009. Jeet Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Satish Kumar ..........Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill,Advocate for the petitioner-defendant. JASWANT SINGH,J. Petitioner-defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 6.10.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bathinda, whereby application filed by petitioner-defendant for setting aside the order dated 21.9.2007, directing ex parte proceedings against him, was dismissed; and with a further prayer for allowing the petitioner-defendant to defend his case. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.3,51,600/- on 9.5.2005, on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 14.5.2002 allegedly having been executed by the petitioner-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Petitioner-defendant was granted leave to defend the suit subject to deposit of 50% of the amount in Court and furnish security of remaining 50% of the suit amount, vide order dated 4.3.2006. Petitioner-defendant challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No.1467/2006 before this Court, which was decided vide order CR NO.325/2009 -2- dated 4.12.2006 and he was allowed to furnish security in the form of immovable property amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. It appears that petitioner-defendant furnished sureties twice but both of them were cancelled and he was directed to furnish fresh surety on 21.9.2007. On 21.9.2007 neither the petitioner-defendant, nor his counsel put in appearance in Court nor they furnished surety, as a result of which learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P/1) proceeded ex parte against the petitioner-defendant. Thereafter, he moved an application dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/2) for setting aside the order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P/1. Respondent-plaintiff filed reply to the said application dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/2). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/2) vide impugned order dated 6.10.2008 (Annexure P/3). Hence the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perusing the impugned orders, I find no illegality in the impugned orders which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. As noticed above, after the petitioner-defendant was directed by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2006, passed in Civil Revision N0.1467/2006 to furnish security in the form of immovable property amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, he furnished surety of one Kartar Chand on 14.2.2007. It was cancelled by the Court being illegal and fraudulently furnished. Fresh surety bonds of Munish Kumar furnished by the petitioner were also cancelled as not being a genuine surety. The learned CR NO.325/2009 -3- trial Court directed the SHO concerned for taking action for cheating the Court. Petitioner-defendant was, however, once again directed to furnish fresh surety bonds subject to the last opportunity on 21.9.2007. On the said date, as already stated hereinabove, neither the petitioner-defendant, nor his counsel put in appearance in Court nor they furnished surety bonds, as a result of which learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P/1) proceeded ex parte against the petitioner-defendant. The explanation given by the petitioner-defendant for his absence on 21.9.2007 is that after registration of an FIR No.561 dated 21.9.2007 against him, he was arrested and that he was released on bail only on 28.2.2008 and after his release he came to know about the passing of the impugned order on 3.4.2008 and therefore, moved application dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/2) for setting aside the order dated 21.9.2007, whereby he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. The explanation furnished by the petitioner-defendant for his/his counsel's absence/non-furnishing of fresh surety-bonds on 21.9.2007 is not satisfactory, as he was arrested 3-4 days after the registration of the FIR on 21.9.2007, therefore, their absence on 21.9.2007 could not be justified. Further, the explanation furnished by the petitioner-defendant for the delay caused in moving the application dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/2) for setting aside the order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P/1) is also not justified. He was throughout in the knowledge of proceedings against him, which in fact he had been prolonging since 2006. Even after his release from Jail on 28.2.2008, he moved the said application after a period of almost three months. Sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner- defendant to furnish surety bonds, but every time he mis-used the same on CR NO.325/2009 -4- one pretext or the other. Not only that the learned trial Court has even directed the concerned SHO PS Civil Lines, Bathinda to take action against the petitioner-defendant and his surety Munish Kumar, for cheating the Court as said Munish Kumar was not a genuine surety. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are perfectly justified and petitioner does not deserve any indulgence by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 21.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge