Civil Revision No. 1772 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Revision No. 1772 of 2009 Date of decision: May 19,2009 Gurdarshan Singh son of Mohan Singh ..Petitioner. Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) As per the office report, the respondent has refused to accept the notice. Thus service is deemed to be effected. However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent. Respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner took a loan of Rs.1.50 lacs from the respondent. He defaulted in repayment. Respondent-bank filed a suit for recovery. In the aforesaid Civil Suit, the petitioner was served for 18.2.2004. However, on the aforesaid date, the Court was closed due to holiday and on the very next day, when the petitioner again went to the court, he was informed by the Reader of the Court that fresh summons will be served upon him. However, no summons were received by the petitioner thereafter and after waiting for some time, when petitioner made inquiries, he came to know that he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 9.2.2004 and ex parte decree dated 28.10.2005 was passed against him. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, respondent filed an execution application and petitioner moved an application with a prayer that the matter be referred to Lok Adalat for compromise. However, compromise could not be effected. Petitioner also moved an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005 vide application Annexure P-1. Another application was filed by the Civil Revision No. 1772 of 2009 2 petitioner for staying execution proceedings against him before the executing Court. It has been stated that instead of passing appropriate orders on these applications, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga has simply ordered to put up the application Annexure P-1 with the main file and further no order has been passed on the application for stay of the execution proceedings. Thus only prayer made before this Court by the petitioner is that let these applications be decided by the trial Court. It is also stated before this Court that the petitioner was willing to make the payment of the decretal amount as per the compromise. Without going into the merits of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Executing Court, Moga to decide the applications, if not decided earlier, (Annexures P-1 and P-2) as attached with this petition expeditiously in accordance with law. Civil Revision is disposed of. May 19, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE