Civil Revision No.44 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.44 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 10, 2011 The Manager, Patiala Aviation Club, Patiala and others .....Petitioners v. Mitranjan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for the petitioners. Mr.Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') by the present petitioners against the impugned orders dated 15.9.2009, vide which after dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, the main application filed on behalf of the petitioners for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff dated 28.9.2004 was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that suit was filed for declaration by respondent-plaintiff- Mitranjan Singh for non-payment of gratuity on his retirement on 31.1.1998 and for with-holding and not paying the salary from December 1994 to January 1998 as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and that respondent-plaintiff is entitled to receive the gratuity on the basis of his pay to be fixed on his retirement and salary from December 1994 to January 1998, alongwith some other retrial benefits alongwith interest. Upon notice being issued to the present revision-petitioners, Civil Revision No.44 of 2010 (O&M) -2- appearance was put and written statement was also filed on their behalf. Issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner-defendants and hence, they were proceeded ex parte and on the basis of ex parte evidence adduced by respondent-plaintiff, ex parte decree was passed in his favour dated 28.9.2004 and decree-sheet was prepared. For setting aside the said judgment and decree, application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was filed by the present petitioner-defendants alongwith application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay and however, the same were dismissed vide impugned orders. Petitioner-defendants did not file any appeal against the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code provides that an appeal shall lie from an Order under IX Rule 13 of the Code, rejecting an application for setting aside the decree passed ex parte. Section 115 of the Code provides that revision petition is maintainable before this Court against the order in which no appeal lies thereto. Hence, in view of the aforementioned legal proposition, the present revision petition, without availing the right of appeal, is not maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has stated that no appeal has been filed against the impugned orders by the petitioners. He has also failed to satisfy this Court as to how the present revision petition is maintainable when the order is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code, as aforementioned. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable. 10.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge