Civil Revision No. 1324 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1324 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.2.2010 M/s Express Promoters Private Limited ....Petitioner Versus Kadam Singh and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. In the relevant suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, there were as many as four defendants including the petitioner herein. On 21.11.2009, an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. came up for consideration. The Court noticed that it is only the learned counsel for defendant no.1 therein who had entered appearance and who had endorsed no objection on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. which came to be allowed on the basis of consensual arrangement. In that order itself Court had noticed that exparte proceedings had already been ordered against defendants no.2 to 4 therein. It was thereafter that the petitioner herein and defendant (before the Trial Court) entered appearance and filed an application for setting aside of the exparte order dated 9.10.2009-vide which exparte proceedings had been ordered against defendants No.2 to 4 Civil Revision No. 1324 of 2010 -2- *** therein (including the petitioner herein). That matter is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court. Though there is nothing in the relevant application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to apply for the recall of order dated 21.11.2009, a request to that would appear to have been made orally before the learned Trial Court which observed that since the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. had already been allowed, it was open to the defendants therein to assail the validity of that order. The suggestion perhaps was the order had to be independently assailed before any higher forum of jurisdiction. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. could not have been allowed in the absence of the petitioner herein, particularly when exparte proceedings had already ordered against defendant no.1 therein. The plea advocated lacks acceptable logic. Exparte proceedings may have been ordered against defendant no.1 therein as well but it cannot be wished away that counsel representing that defendants did appear before the Court on 21.11.2009 and, on the basis of an endorsement made by him on the application itself, plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. came to be allowed. A party against whom exparte order had been granted can always join the proceedings from the very stage it enters appearance. Further if a party wants setting aside of the proceedings taken in its absence, it has to obtain the leave of the Court by filing a plea for setting aside Civil Revision No. 1324 of 2010 -3- *** of exparte proceedings against it. There was, thus, nothing to debar defendant no.1 therein to appear on 21.11.2009, through a counsel, and to concede the grant of application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. February 26, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE