C.R. No.887 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.887 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.7.2008 Gurpreet Singh .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Madan Lal Singla and Sons ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner, impugns an order dated 10.1.2008, whereby his application for recalling the order dated 2.6.2004, dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.11.1996 was dismissed. An ex-parte judgement and decree was passed against the petitioner, for a sum of Rs.47,000/-, by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana on 30.11.1996. On 15.3.2001 i.e. more than four years later, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgement and decree. The application was dismissed in default on 2.6.2004 for non payment of costs and non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for restoration, on 21.10.2004. The learned trial Court dismissed the application, by holding that the application was highly belated and time barred, and made a reference to the petitioner’s conduct that during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and despite grant of five effective opportunities and the imposition of costs of Rs.300/-,the petitioner C.R. No.887 of 2008 2 failed to lead any evidence. It would be necessary to mention here that when the revision petition came up for motion hearing and upon a prayer made by counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.60,000/-, notice be issued and proceedings of auction be stayed, the petitioner's prayer was accepted and proceedings for auction were stayed. On 10.3.2008, the petitioner prayed for and was granted a fortnight’s time to comply with the order dated 15.2.2008. On 1.7.2008, a last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 15.2.2008. The petitioner has, however, failed to deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/-. The petitioner's conduct, in proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte judgement and decree and before this Court are self explanatory as to his intent to delay proceedings before the Executing Court and prevent the decree holder, from reaping the just reward of a decree passed in 1996. The learned trial Court, after a considered appraisal of the entire case held that the application for restoration was highly belated and time barred. I find no reason to differ with the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Court. As noticed herein above, the ex-parte judgement and decree was passed on 30.11.1996. The application for setting aside the ex- parte decree was filed on 15.3.2001, after a delay of more than four years. This application was dismissed in default on 2.6.2004. Prior thereto, 4 opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence namely on 3.11.2003, 22.1.2004, 25.3.2004, 5.5.2004. On 5.5.2004, Rs.300/- was imposed as costs. Despite this, the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court to tender costs or to lead any evidence, compelling the trial Court to dismiss the application for setting aside the ex-parte C.R. No.887 of 2008 3 judgement and decree on 2.6.2004. The application for restoration was, thereafter filed on 21.10.2004. The petitioner's explanation that he was misled by his counsel was rightly rejected. Courts are liberal in restoring suits/applications dismissed for default but where the conduct of a party is culpably negligent or malafide, the exercise of discretion in their favour would perpetuate injustice. The petitioner's conduct disentitles him to any relief. No merit. Dismissed. 17.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE