Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs Ranjit Singh And Others on 3 October, 2012
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5834 of 2012
Date of decision:03.10.2012
Tarsem Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Ranjit Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present: Mr Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
T.P.S.Mann, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in the suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2, has challenged the order dated 21.8.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Gurdaspur whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte proceedings initiated on 3.1.2008, was dismissed.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it is made out that though the petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 3.1.2008 yet on the following day i.e. 4.1.2008, he filed his written statement. He also cross- examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs besides leading his own evidence. Therefore, the petitioner had joined the proceedings but no specific order was on the file for setting aside the ex parte proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 3.1.2008 the petitioner had put in appearance before the trial Court and the counsel representing him put on record his memo of appearance. On the following day, the written statement was also filed by him. He then cross examined the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs as well as examined his Civil Revision No.5834 of 2012 [2] own evidence. Under these circumstances, the petitioner may be permitted to join the proceedings initiated against him.
It is true that on 4.1.2008, the petitioner had filed his written statement and thereafter, cross examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs besides examining his own evidence, however, fact remains that on 3.1.2008 he had not put in appearance and in view of the fact that he had refused to accept the notices issued by the Court for the said date, his service was dispensed with and on account of his non appearance, ex parte proceedings were initiated. Filing of memo of appearance by the counsel representing the petitioner before the trial Court seems to be suspicious as no endorsement was made thereupon by the trial Court. It appears to have been presented by the petitioner in the office without bringing this fact into the notice of the trial Court. Anyhow, once, the petitioner has filed his written statement and after cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiffs has examined his own evidence, direction can be issued to the trial Court to permit the petitioner to join the proceedings In view of the above, the revision is allowed, ex parte proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 3.1.2008 and order dated 21.8.2012 passed by the trial Court dismissing his application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to join the proceedings before the trial Court subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs.
03.10.2012 ( T.P.S.Mann ) sd Judge