C.R. No. 4882 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 4882 of 2008 Date of decision: March 30,2009 Rajinder Singh son of Chandan Singh ..Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for respondents ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) On an application filed by the Punjab Financial Corporation (respondent No.1) under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 (for short “the Act”), a consent order/judgment was passed for recovery of Rs. 2,94,057.02 along with future interest @ 17-1/2 % from 5.5.1990 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 Harbhajan Singh. Respondent No.1 filed execution of the aforesaid order/judgment dated 10.9.1982 passed under Section 31 of the Act by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. In pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared and filed objections vide Annexure P-7 in which it was stated that he was not a party to the compromise arrived at between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount in pursuance of the aforesaid order/judgment dated 10.9.1992. During the pendency of the aforesaid execution proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 23.9.2006. He moved an application dated 14.8.2007 for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte order dated 23.9.2006. The executing court vide impugned order has rejected the aforesaid C.R. No. 4882 of 2008 2 application observing that the petitioner has failed to explain the reasons for his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained as he is entitled to join the proceedings at least from the stage at which they existed on, the day when the present application was filed. This argument of the petitioner could not be controverted by the counsel for the decree-holder. In Hans Raj owner of the firm Ram Saran Dass Ram Dass, Amritsar Versus Sohan Singh and others AIR 1954 Punjab 207, it was held that as long as an ex. parte decree is not passed, the defendant is entitled to come in and defend the suit. The defendant against whom the case is proceeding ex parte may join at any hearing of the case and start from that stage. The petitioner is entitled to join the execution proceedings from the stage as existed on the date of application Thus, the present revision petition is disposed of with the observations that petitioner is entitled to join the proceedings with effect from 14.8.2007. March 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE