IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2644 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.12.2009 L.I.C.Housing Finance Limited .....Petitioner versus Dr.Joseph K.Masih and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.O.P.Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, against the order dated 29.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Runnagar, whereby the order dated 8.5.2004 passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, has been set-aside. It may be noticed here that vide the above-stated order dated 8.5.2004, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, declined the ad-interim injunction sought by the plaintiff after holding that, prima- facie, the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002. The respondent-plaintiff went in appeal against the afore-mentioned order dated 8.5.2004, which has been C.R. No.2644 of 2008 (O&M) 2 allowed ex-parte vide the impugned judgment dated 29.8.2006. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner-company that a counsel was duly engaged but he failed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Rupnagar as a result of which serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused. There can indeed be no doubt that ordinarily a litigant can not be made to suffer due to the negligence of his pleader/counsel. The petitioner-company having engaged a counsel, could legitimately accept that he would appear and assist the Court on its behalf. The non- appearance of the counsel for one date of hearing, therefore, should not prejudice the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that the name of the defaulting lawyer has been subsequently removed from the panel. For the reasons afore-stated, I allow this revision petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 29.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, and remit the matter to the first Appellate Court, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, to decide the appeal preferred by the respondent- plaintiff afresh and after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, on 7.1.2010. Dasti. 08-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE