Civil Revision No.437 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.437 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2011 Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner v. Pardeep Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1657-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.437 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.9.2010, Annexure P7, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar, being illegal, ultra vires, void and without jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-defendant was in the knowledge of pendency of the present suit since the very beginning and he was watching the proceedings. It is further contended that other civil as well as criminal proceedings were also pending between the parties and in the other proceedings in an application filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, factum of pendency of this suit was brought to the notice of respondent-defendant. Further contends that for setting aside ex parte proceedings, under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code'), the respondent-defendant was to show sufficient cause. However, learned Civil Revision No.437 of 2011 (O&M) -2- trial Court passed the impugned order without even discussing the facts of present case and without coming to the conclusion that sufficient cause was made out for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against respondent- defendant, when evidence of petitioner-plaintiff already concluded. It has also been contended that in similar matter passed by this Court on 18.1.2011 in Civil Revision No.304 of 2011, learned trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh by passing a detailed speaking order. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Amritsar, shows that it has been mentioned that summons of defendant were received back with the report of refusal and subsequently he was ordered to be summoned through munadi and affixation and thereafter he was proceeded ex parte, when he was served by way of munadi and affixation. No finding has been given by learned trial Court as to whether respondent-defendant was properly served or not and as to whether sufficient cause is made out by respondent-defendant for getting the ex parte proceedings set aside. In view of these facts, the present petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte proceedings afresh by passing a detailed speaking order. Disposed of accordingly. 27.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge