C.R. No. 6057 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6057 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 10, 2009 Krishan Dev Puri …..Petitioner Vs. Kailash Chand Khanna and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Kamal Kumar Puri, son of the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Aggrieved by the dismissal of Suit No. 89 of 2008-Krishan Dev Puri Vs. Krishan Chand Khanan and others, vide order dated December 9, 2008, a compliant was made by Krishan Dev Puri against the Judicial Officer Sh.Ajaib Singh, PCS, Judge Small Cause Court, Amritsar, to the Chief Justice of India as well as to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Administrative Judge had taken up the matter on administrative side an observed that the order of dismissal of December 9, 2008 was unreasonable order as the plaintiff had already closed his evidence and nothing else was required to be done by the plaintiff on said date of hearing. Comments of the judicial officer had also been called for. C.R. No. 6057 of 2009 [2] Vide order dated October 12, 2009, the Administrative Judge had suo motu taken note of the order dated December 9, 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and ordered the same to be heard as Civil Revision No. 6057 of 2009. The complaint of the complainant- plaintiff was thus converted into a civil revision and records of the trial Court have been summoned. Today, the son of the complainant- plaintiff Kamal Kumar Puri is present in the Court and informs that the plaintiff- petitioner being more than 85 years of age is unwell and is not able to appear in person. I have perused the record of the trial Court which indicates that the suit for maintenance filed by the plaintiff was being perused by him before the trial Court. No doubt, there are few technical flaws in the suit filed and pursued in person by the plaintiff- petitioner but a fact is apparent from the record that the defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 in the case were proceeded against ex-parte on May 15, 2008 and September 9, 2008, respectively. Two witnesses were examined by the plaintiff- petitioner and he had closed his ex-parte evidence on November 27, 2008. On December 9, 2008 when the defendants were ex-parte, the plaintiff- petitioner did not turn up as such the suit was dismissed in default. On December 9, 2008, the plaintiff- petitioner was not required to do anything but it was for the Court on said date to appreciate the contents of the plaintiff and consider the ex- parte evidence produced by the plaintiff- petitioner and pass appropriate order. The plaintiff has mentioned his age as 85 years. He was appearing in person. Taking into consideration the said circumstances, it was not C.R. No. 6057 of 2009 [3] expected from the Court to adopt a casual approach and dismissed the case in default especially when there was material available to the Court to finally dispose of the case on merits. The interest of justice warranted that the Court should have either adjourned the case and to give an opportunity to the old litigant to put fourth his case or to have decided the case on merits as the defendants were not contesting the case of the plaintiff- petitioner. Exercising the supervisory and inherent powers and taking into consideration the old age of the applicants in the interests of justice, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the order dated December 9, 2008 with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the case of the plaintiff on merits on the basis of the material available on the record. The son of the petitioner who is present in the Court, has been informed that the next date of hearing before the trial Court is January 16, 2010. Necessary arrangement should be made by the petitioner to pursue the case on said date by putting in appearance in person or through a duly appointed representative in accordance with law. The son of the petitioner, present in the Court, has noted the date of hearing before the trial Court on January 16, 2010. It will be open to the Presiding Officer to allow or dismiss the claim of petitioner on merits. Disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to District Judge, Amritsar. December 10, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE