IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.08.2010 C.R.No.5360 of 2010 (O&M) Shashi Bhushan ...Petitioner Versus Dyal Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned trial Court, allowing the application filed by the defendant to contest the suit and the order dated 28.07.2010 (Annexure P-7), whereby an application filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree, was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery by invoking the summary procedure contained under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said suit, the learned trial Court allowed an application to defend the suit. The said order passed by the learned trial Court on 05.08.2009 was not challenged by the petitioner. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner moved an application for passing a decree, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that since the order granting leave to defend has not been challenged, therefore, the decree cannot be passed without giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the present revision petition, the challenge is to the order dated C.R.No.5360 of 2010 (O&M) 05.08.2009 granting leave to defend as well as to subsequent order dated 28.07.2010. The application for leave to defend the suit was allowed on 05.08.2009 i.e. more than a year ago. The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said order in the present revision petition, when the subsequent application filed by the petitioner for passing a decree has been dismissed. Since the petitioner has not challenged the order granting leave to defend with due diligence soon after and within a reasonable period, I do not find any ground to permit the petitioner to dispute such order in the present proceedings at this stage. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed, as the findings recorded by the learned trial Court did not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 25.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2