Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ludari Ram vs Sanjay Talwar on 18 February, 2022
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No. 30
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CR No. 50/2019
CM No. 7887/2019
Ludari Ram .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Amarvir Singh Manhas, Advocate
Vs
Sanjay Talwar ..... Respondent(s)
Through: None
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as trial court) by virtue of which, learned trial court has set aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against the respondent herein, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-.
2. It is stated that the trial court has fallen in grave error in allowing the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings as the respondent had miserably failed to substantiate his claim that he was unable to attend the court proceedings due to reasons as projected in his applicable.
3. Mr. Amarvir Singh Manhas, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law particularly when the respondent had miserably failed to demonstrate the good cause for his non-appearance on the date he was set ex-parte. Mr. Manhas places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled, 'Sandeep Thapar 2 CR No. 50/2019 vs. SME Technologies Private Limited' reported in 2014 Legal Eagle (SC) 4805 to demonstrate that heavy cost was required to be imposed.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. This is the revision petition which is not maintainable as in the event, such petition is allowed, it will not lead to the termination of the proceedings. More so, the learned trial court has set aside the ex-parte proceedings against the respondent after recording its satisfaction with regard to the sufficiency of the reasons for non-appearance on the date when he was set ex-parte and further holding that litigant ought not to be denied of his right to have his lis determined on the basis of merits. There is no illegality in the order impugned. More so, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial court as such this court does not deem it necessary to exercise power under article 227 of the constitution of India. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable in the instant case.
Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition, as such, the same is dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 18.02.2022 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No