IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3225 of 2010. Date of Decision : 17.5.2010. Dharmender Singh ......Petitioner Versus Hoshiar Singh ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This plaintiff's revision is directed against the order dated April 13 th, 2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, whereby, defence of the petitioner was struck off on account of non-filing of reply to the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-2) by the defendant-respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that at 10.10 AM clerk of the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the trial Court for filing reply but he was informed that defence has already been struck off. The petitioner immediately at 10.45 AM, filed application for taking on record the reply as find mentioned in the application (Annexure P-3) notwithstanding that, the trial Judge instead of taking on record the reply on the same day, called for the reply of that application and adjourned the case for September 16 th, 2010. It appears that the trial Judge was not aware of Rule 6 of Part- J, Chapter-I, Vol.-I of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court which provides that the tendency to dismiss case in default or to pass ex-parte orders in a hasty manner in order to show an increased out-turn is to be strongly deprecated and is not to be resorted to in any case. The Presiding Officers should note down the time in their own hand when a case is dismissed in default or an order to proceed ex-parte is passed. The trial Judge instead of calling for the reply to the application could have re-called the order passed by him. Civil Revision No. 3225 of 2010. (2) Be that as it may, the revision petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. The trial Judge is directed to take on record the reply filed by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Before parting with the record, this Court would like to draw the attention of the Judicial Officer to the directions contained in Chapter-I of Vol.1 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court and also to the well accepted and time tested golden rule that contest on merits is always a better option. Hiper-technical view of procedural law is not to be taken lest the Court goes astray from the course of substantive justice. Despite the fact that the Courts are sometimes burdened with heavy pendency, efforts are to be made towards speedy disposal. What ends were met and who benefited by the act of the Court of adjourning the matter for more than five months. Why the order passed in obvious haste was not re-called on the same date. One wonders if the Judicial Officer has any reasonable explanation for his nonchalance. He will be well-advised to correct his approach and to be cautious. Adjournments may be granted when justified but not in the manner granted in this case nor for the trivial matters. Let the displeasure of this Court in this matter be conveyed to Civil Judge (Senior Division). He will be well-advised to desist from such a travesty of justice and undesirable conduct in future. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 17.5.2010. SN