Civil Revision No. 2522 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2522 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.05.2009. Jamna and others Petitioners Versus Phoolwati and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners are in revision against the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 vide which the learned Trial Court declined their plea for setting aside of the exparte order dated 12.4.2005 qua petitioners Jagdish, Om Parkash and Randhir and order dated 22.4.2005 qua petitioners Bhag Singh and Jamna. They filed the declined plea only on 13.2.2009. The explanation offered for the delay was that they had not been properly served to appear at the trial. The learned Trial Court declined the plea by observing that they had, infact, been duly served and that they could not claimed ignorance about the pendency of the impugned cause because they are closely related to the other defendants therein who were contesting the suit. The learned Trial Court also noticed, in the Civil Revision No. 2522 of 2009 -2- **** context, that the plea was particularly malafide because it had been filed only when the case came to be fixed for recording of rebuttal evidence and the arguments on the merits thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade me to find any factual error in the observations made by the learned Trial Court. In that view of things, the impugned plea having been filed after unexplained and inordinate delay cannot be faulted on any valid score, particularly when the learned Trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that the service upon the petitioners- defendants had been proved to have been properly effected. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 04, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge