Judgment:
Civil Revision No.6524 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6524 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: July 01, 2013.
Rishi Pal ....Petitioner Versus Sunita and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Pawan Gaur, Advocate, for respondents no.1 to 5 and 7.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Civil Misc.
No.-25664-CII-2011 Allowed.
For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 73 days in re-filing the instant petition is condoned.
Civil Revision No.6524 of 2011 Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.09.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Palwal whereby the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 20.08.1999 has been dismissed and order dated 05.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.
Civil Revision No.6524 o”
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendants.
The said suit was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence for 11.08.1999, but neither the petitioner, not his counsel appeared on the date fixed and ultimately, the petitioner alongwith others was proceeded ex parte.
Thereafter, vide order dated 20.08.1999, ex parte decree was passed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the next date of hearing was wrongly given as 11.09.1999 instead of 11.08.1999 and for that reason, the petitioner as well as his counsel could not appear in Court.
It is further averred that when the petitioner appeared on 28.08.1999 in Court in some other case, he came to knot that the ex parte decree has been passed in the earlier suit on 20.08.1999.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below.
Admittedly, the date for leading of plaintiffs' evidence was 11.08.1999, however, the petitioner was given date as 11.09.1999 and due to this reason, neither the petitioner not his counsel appeared on 11.08.1999.
As a result of it, the ex parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and thereafter immediately on 20.08.1999, the ex parte decree was passed.
The trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner considering that there was only bald statement of the petitioner, no other evidence was led and it was alleged that another person namely Ramchandi was looking after the case.
It has come in the evidence that the petitioner came to knot about passing of the ex parte decree on 28.08.1999, as he was informed by the Clerk Civil Revision No.6524 o”
3. of the counsel when the petitioner appeared in Court in another case.
It is settled principle of law that the Court should take liberal approach and for advancing the cause of substantial justice, hyper-technical approach should not be taken.
The petitioner or his counsel may be negligent for not appearing on 11.08.1999, but immediately after coming into his notice about passing of the ex parte decree dated 20.08.1999, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by the petitioner.
It is important to note here that where no one appeaRs.then the Court should afford opportunity to the defendants, who are being represented by a counsel and intimation regarding the same should be given and opportunities should also be afforded to the parties to lead evidence.
Moreover, the respondents-plaintiffs can be compensated by awarding some amount as costs for the inconvenience caused to them.
In view of this, the impugned orders dated 29.09.2008 as well as dated 5.10.2010 and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.08.1999 are also set aside, subject to payment of ` 3,000/- as costs which shall be paid to the respondents-plaintiffs/tendered in Court.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 02.09.2013 and the trial Court will proceed further with the case from the stage when ex parte proceedings on 11.8.1999 were ordered.
[ Paramjeet Singh ].July 01, 2013 Judge parveen kumar