Civil Revision No. 5287 of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5287 of 2007 Date of decision: 18.10.2007 M/s Sonu Medicos and another ...Petitioners Versus Smt. Kamal Maniktala and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioners. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), U.T., Chandigarh whereby the petitioners were proceeded against exparte. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same was passed by the Court below for the reason that on the previous date, the petitioners were granted opportunity to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/- and the on the next date fixed neither the written statement was filed nor cost was paid and accordingly, petitioners were proceeded against exparte. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the error occurred due to wrong noting of date by the petitioners and in case one opportunity is granted, written statement shall be filed and costs paid. Praying for setting aside of the impugned order, reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3304. In the petition, the particulars about the case had not been mentioned, however, from the title of the case, as mentioned in the order, it is evident that the respondent No. 1 had approached the Court by filing a suit for recovery against the petitioners for the amount paid by her to the bank as guarantors in the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against the petitioners. Though no date is forthcoming after filing of the suit as Civil Revision No. 5287 of 2007 -2- *** even the certified copy of the impugned order has not been placed on record but it is evident from the impugned order that the suit must have been filed in September, 2006 as the interest had been claimed upto August, 2006, meaning thereby, in a period of about one year, the petitioner did not file written statement. However, in my opinion, the judgment in Rani Kusum's case (supra) will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that in the present case, the petitioners have been proceeded against exparte on account of their non-appearance on the date fixed. The plea regarding noting of wrong date is merely after thought to justify their non appearance as even if the petitioners had noted wrong date of August 13, 2007 as against June 13, 2007 still they took two months to file the present petition in this Court. Considering the fact that firstly the respondent no.1 was made to suffer on account of faith posed by him in the petitioners by standing guarantee for the loan raised by them and after the amount was recovered from respondent No.1, her agony is being prolonged by the petitioners by not filing the written statement and not appearing in the Court. Seeing the conduct of the petitioners, I do not find any justification for setting aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. October 18, 2007 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka/renu Judge