Civil Revision No.7572 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7572 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Dharam Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Defendant/petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 13.12.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, as well as the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the application moved by the defendant/petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.9.2005, was dismissed. Undisputedly, initially an ex parte judgment and decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 23.11.1993. Defendant/petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 23.11.1993, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.5.1999. Defendant/petitioner went in appeal and his appeal Civil Revision No.7572 of 2010 (O&M) -2- was allowed vide judgment dated 30.7.2004, allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1993 and directing the parties to appear before the trial Court for further orders on 21.8.2004. According to defendant/petitioner, he appeared before the trial Court on 21.8.2004, however, file was not received from the appellate Court, hence no date was granted by the trial Court. Record reveals that several dates were fixed by the trial Court, however, defendant/petitioner remained absent. Ultimately, suit was again decreed ex parte against the defendant/petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2005. Second time defendant/petitioner again moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2005, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 13.12.2008 and appeal therefrom was also dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since file has not come before the trial Court on 21.8.2004, hence no date was fixed by the trial Court. Thereafter trial Court was duty bound to send notice to the defendant for the next date fixed. Since trial Court has not sent any notice, hence defendant remained under confusion and could not appear before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that plaintiff had filed revision before this Court against the remand order dated 30.7.2004, hence also defendant got confused that his case before the trial Court would be listed after the decision in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that revision was dismissed on 10.8.2006, however, during the pendency Civil Revision No.7572 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of the revision suit was decreed ex parte by the trial Court on 27.9.2005. Undisputedly, no stay was ever granted against the remand order in a revision pending before this Court. Once, appellate Court while allowing appeal has directed the parties to appear before the trial Court on 21.8.2004 and according to defendant he appeared before the trial Court on 21.8.2004. If file was not available before the trial Court on 21.8.2004, defendant or his counsel were expected to be vigilant and to inquire about the next date fixed. Be case as may be, but fact remains defendant did not appear before the trial Court on any further dates, hence defendant has to blame himself. Pendency of suit after remand was very well in the knowledge of the defendant. In the present matter defendant could not show any sufficient reason for remaining absent before the trial Court. I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 19, 2010 R.S.