Civil Revision No.5783 of 2007(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5783 of 2007(O & M) Date of decision 04.02.2009 Ram Kumar .....Petitioner versus Norang and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Divya Sarup, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the respondent. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The civil revision petition is against the order allowing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of injunction. The defendant was set aside ex parte on 18.02.2002 and ultimately a decree was passed on 22.03.2002. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on the next day setting out the reason of a circumstances averred that his counsel had advised him that his presence in Court was necessary. The Court below accepted the contention and set aside the ex parte decree. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the defendant had himself filed a suit for recovery of possession in respect of the same property and was very well aware of the hearing of the case on the date when it was listed. According to him, there was no justification for his non appearance and the Court ought not to have set aside the said ex parte decree. 3. The suit, in relation to immovable property, definitely requires Civil Revision No.5783 of 2007(O & M) -2- an adjudication on merits, especially when it is even conceded that the defendant has also filed his own suit for recovery of possession. The counsel also relied on a judgment of this Court in 2007 (3) RCR 619 where this Court found in a case where the defendant complained of non service of summons, when he was set aside ex parte, that if the defendant had knowledge of the proceedings, there was no reason to set aside the decree. The same situation does not arise, in this case, for it is not a case of lack of knowledge of the pendency of suit. It is a case of a bona fide belief of a defendant that his presence was not necessary on the advice of his counsel. 4. The order passed, setting aside the ex parte order, calls for no interference, in revision petition. 5. The revision petition is dismissed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 04.02.2009 A. Kaundal