IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1182 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Manoranjan Kaur ....Petitioner. Versus Bhai Ashok Singh and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed by defendant No.5-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for setting aside the order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by her for setting aside the order dated 26.2.2004 proceeding against her ex parte was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner on the basis of inheritance of his father, Ardaman Singh, of the land left by him to the extent of 1/5th share, situated within the revenue estate of village Dialpura Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda with a consequential relief that mutation No. 2736 dated 25.4.1992 sanctioned in favour of deceased Hari Dhan Singh and mutation No. 2768 dated CR No. 1182 of 2009 -2- 21.3.1996 sanctioned in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on the basis of alleged Will dated 30.6.1993 were null and void, inoperative and against law and facts and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The said suit was filed in the year 2001 and defendant No.5-petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 26.2.2004 in the said suit. An application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed on 11.12.2008. The trial court while rejecting the application for setting aside the order dated 26.2.2004 has noticed that defendant No.3, who is brother of defendant No.5-petitioner, and was proceeded against ex parte by that very order, had also filed an application for setting aside the same, but his application was dismissed vide detailed order dated 21.11.2008. It was thereafter that the similar application was filed by defendant No.5 for setting aside the said order dated 26.2.2004 whereby all the five defendants were proceeded against ex parte which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10.2.2009. The trial court recorded that defendant No.5-petitioner is the sister of the plaintiff and she had stated that whenever she used to come to the village, then she had the knowledge regarding the pendency of the suit. It was further recorded that defendant No.5-petitioner had filed the application only in 2008 with an intention to delay the decision of the suit which was filed in the year 2001. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file, no illegality or perversity could be found in the impugned order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under CR No. 1182 of 2009 -3- Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 14.9.2009 for further proceedings in accordance with law. August 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE