IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7391 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:13.12.2010 Balbir Kaur ....Petitioner versus Harsarup Singh @ Nikku ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ---- 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) The revision is filed under Article 227 for an order which was passed on 12.05.2010 dismissing an application to set aside the ex parte order. From the records, I find the case has gone through many a tribulation. The defendant had been set ex parte on 09.06.2006 and on his application to set aside the ex parte order, the Court had allowed it subject to payment of cost of Rs.600/- and to come up for cross- examination of witnesses on 23.07.2007. On 23.07.2007, admittedly the cost had not been paid but the applicant would have an explanation that she went to fetch her counsel and in the meanwhile, the Court had again dismissed the application and proceeded the defendant ex parte. Subsequently, the present application was filed to set aside the ex parte order which was again passed on 23.07.2007. The case went on and Civil Revision No.7391 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ultimately came to be decided on 12.05.2010. An order which was passed under Order 9 Rule 7 on 12.05.2010 which if it had been decided otherwise would have gone to dispose of the case finally and, therefore, this could have been subject of revision under Section 115 CPC. However, the revision is filed under Article 227 challenging the order nearly 7 months later and again the explanation is that the counsel did not inform the party and, therefore, there had been a delay. What would have been otherwise possible under Section 115 cannot be taken as a revision under Article 227 only to enable a party to approach the Court beyond the period of limitation. If the case should still be examined under Article 227, an intervention would be possible only in situations where the impugned order is illegal. I find no illegality about an order refusing to permit the applicant to set aside the ex parte order. I find a deliberate attempt of the party to filibuster and prolong the proceeding. A case for specific performance that began trial in 2007 for examination of the plaintiffs has chugged along without any progress and to no purpose. The revision is not bona fide and it is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.12.2010 sanjeev