In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3910 of 2009 Date of Decision:July 16, 2009 Lt. Col. R.S.Yadav ---Petitioner versus Shri Ishwar Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Dr. K.S.Yadav,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Lt. Col. R.S.Yadav- had filed a suit for declaration and possession of Kothi No. 42, Sector-3, Part-II, HUDA, Rewari. Notice of the suit was issued. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 9.1.2008. Vide the impugned order dated 2.1.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Rewari, the order vide which defendant No. 2 was ordered to be proceeded ex parte, was set aside. Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) has been filed by the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 9.1.2008 on the basis of the report dated 7.1.2008 of the process server to the effect that defendant No. 2 had refused to accept the summon. The case of defendant No. 2 while seeking setting aside of Civil Revision No. 3910 of 2009 -2- order dated 9.1.2008, was that, in fact, he was a heart patient and during the said period he was admitted in Shri Bala Ji Action Medical Institute Paschim Vihar, Delhi on 24.12.2007. On 1.9.2008 he had gone to the said hospital as an out door patient and had been advised complete bed rest for 10 days i.e. up to 10.1.2008. Hence, the report of the process server was not correct. The plea taken by defendant No. 2 in reply to the application was denied by the plaintiff. Learned trial court has observed that the application seeking setting aside of ex parte order was duly supported by an affidavit and medical certificate and in these circumstances the ex parte order was liable to be set aside. Since the ex parte order against defendant No. 2 had been set aside, lis between the parties would now be decided on merits after giving opportunity to defendant No. 2 to present his case. The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Defendant No. 2 would not stand to gain by not appearing in the Court to contest the case. Now by way of the present application he has sought that the order vide which he was proceeded ex parte be set aside. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2009 PARAMJIT