IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.274 of 2007 Date of decision:09.03.2009 Vinod ...Petitioner versus Zile Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order dismissing an application filed by the respondent for setting aside an order allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff. 2. From the records, it is seen that the Court of first instance had dismissed the application for injunction sought for by the plaintiff. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the notice was directed to be served on the counsel for the defendant and he had refused to take notice stating that notice could be taken to the parties directly. It is seen that the Court of first instance was at Mohindergarh and the Appellate Court was not in the same town but in another town, Narnaul. When the counsel at Mohindergarh refused to take notice on behalf of his client, the learned Judge at Narnaul appears to have found the refusal to be unjustified, proceeded ex parte order against the respondents and consequently passed the order allowing the appeal on 20.04.2006. Civil Revision No.274 of 2007 - 2 - 3. The application for rehearing of the appeal was filed in the shape of the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The only point that was necessary for consideration before the Appellate Authority was whether there was justifiable cause for his non appearance at the Appellate Court. Although Order 41 refers only to regular appeals, the principle contained therein shall still be applied to miscellaneous appeals filed under Order 43 also. Order 41 Rule 21 CPC sets out the circumstances when an appeal could be directed to be reheard and it is an admitted fact that no personal notice had been served on the respondents in the appeal. The order passed on 20.04.2006 is therefore bound to be set aside and the appeal has to be heard afresh. 4. The impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed having regarding to the fact that the suit is still pending and the appeal was disposed of nearly three years earlier, it is directed that the Appellate Court disposes of the matter expeditiously within two months from today. 5. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above terms. 6. For appearance of parties before the Appellate Court on 01.04.2009. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.03.2009 sanjeev