C.R. No.5290 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 06.09.2010 Malkiat Singh ... Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This revision is directed against the order dated 24.09.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order has been dismissed. I have perused the impugned order passed by the executing Court. During the pendency of the execution petition, the present petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte on 06.12.2003. The Court below after inviting objections to the application, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06.12.2003? OPA 2. Whether the application is within limitation? OPA 3. Whether the present application is not C.R. No.5290 of 2005 -2- legally maintainable? OPR 4. Relief. The applicant (petitioner herein) was granted opportunity to produce the evidence. Even after four opportunities, no evidence was led. The Court below, accordingly, on 24.09.2005 closed the evidence and dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of evidence in support of the application. The petitioner has again chosen not to pursue this revision petition. I have also perused the impugned order as also the grounds of revision. The only ground mentioned in the revision petition is that the petitioner was willing to make his own statement but he remained ill due to Jaundice till May, 2005 and failed to appear in the Court for making his statement. Except this reason, no other ground has been disclosed. The application filed by the petitioner before the Court below was not supported by any medical evidence nor any such evidence is referred to, to substantiate the averments made in the revision petition with regard to illness of the petitioner. In the absence of any material on record, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In view of the above, I find no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 06.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE C.R. No.5290 of 2005 -3-