IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.5728/2008. Date of Decision:9.1.2009. The Union of India and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Amrik Singh ..........Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Ram Chander,Advocate for the petitioners-defendants. Mr. R.D. Bawa,Advocate for the respondent-plaintiff. JASWANT SINGH,J. Union of India and its officials-petitioners-defendants have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2007 (Annexure P/1) whereby ex parte proceedings have been initiated against them on account of non-appearance on their behalf; as also order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P/4); dismissing the application moved by petitioners-defendants for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2007 (Annexure P/1). Both these orders have been passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala. Respondent-plaintiff Amrik Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that action of the defendants, deducting an amount of Rs.23720/- from his pay and allowances at the time of his retirement, is illegal, without any authority and further praying for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners-defendants to pay the said amount with interest. It is borne out from the present revision petition that after filing CR NO.5728/2008. 2 of the written statement, on 16.10.2006, respondent-plaintiff moved an application for production of documents and the case was posted to 17.11.2007 for filing reply to the said application. However, nephew of counsel for the petitioners-defendants met with an accident and was admitted in Amar Hospital, Patiala for a major operation and as such counsel for the petitioners-defendants could not appear before the Court on 17.11.2007 and the petitioners-defendants were proceeded ex parte. Soon thereafter, on 22.11.2007, application (Annexure P/2) was moved by the petitioners-defendants for recalling of the order dated 17.11.2007 (Annexure P/1), which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Patiala, vide impugned order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P/4). Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Petitioners-defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.11.2007 on account of non-appearance of their counsel. The petitioners-defendants have placed on record an affidavit (Annexure P/3) of their counsel, Sh.Harjiv Singh Harika,Advocate. The reasons given by their counsel for non-appearance are extracted below as under:- “2.That the nephew of the deponent i.e. counsel for the defendants met with an accident on 16.11.2007 and he was admitted in Amar Hospital, Patiala for a major operation, the operation was conducted on 17.11.2007 and as such the deponent being a CR NO.5728/2008. 3 responsible family elder attended upon his nephew on 17.11.2007 and hence could not appear before the Hon'ble Court on the date fixed, and was proceeded ex-parte. 3. That absence of deponent on 17.11.2007 in the Court was neither intentional nor wilful, but was due to reasons explained above”. It is further not disputed that in November 2007, the claim of the respondent-plaintiff (as raised in the civil suit) was under process/consideration with the petitioners-defendants. Therefore, it was suggested that no real prejudice was caused by such delay. It has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that his evidence is yet to commence. It is well accepted that in the matter of determination of dispute between the parties, it is the pious duty of the Courts to hear both sides and grant adequate opportunities to adduce their evidence. The approach adopted by the Courts must be equitable in character and more so when the public money is involved. In the present case, though sufficient opportunities had been granted to the petitioners-defendants to file their reply to the application for production of documents, however, in my opinion, the reasons given by their counsel for his non-appearance on 17.11.2007, as reproduced hereinabove, upon which the petitioners-defendants were proceeded ex parte, are bona fide and thus liable to be accepted. For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition is CR NO.5728/2008. 4 allowed, impugned orders dated 17.11.2007 (Annexure P/1) and 23.7.2008 (Annexure P/4) are set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff and the trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 9.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge