JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This order shall dispose of above noted two civil revisions, as the same have emanated out of the same occurrence.

2. The revision petition bearing CR No.9444 of 2025 is directed against the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which the petitioner has only been permitted to join the proceedings without affording him any opportunity to file the written statement while deciding the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 and a prayer has been made for issuing directions to allow the petitioner/defendant No.2 to file the written statement.

3. CR-399-2026 has been instituted against the same order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order dated 24.03.2022, vide which defendant No.2/respondent has been permitted to join the proceedings.

4. Ms. Manju Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 in CR-9444-2025 and filed her Power of Attorney. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on the file.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CR-9444-2025 argued that the petitioner was never served with the summons issued by the Trial Court and he was proceeded exparte on the very first date on the basis of the report submitted by the Process Server regarding affixation of summons at his house, despite the fact that it was also reported that he was not found present at the spot. Learned counsel further contended that even the Chowkidar was also not present at the spot and the report is not witnessed by any respectable person and the learned Trial Court wrongly initiated exparte proceedings against the petitioner. Rather, fresh notice should have been issued to him through the ordinary process as well as through registered post so as to serve him with the summons. Learned counsel next contended that when he came to know of the exparte proceedings, he moved an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings and the learned Trial Court has merely allowed him to join the proceedings but no opportunity has been given to file his written statement. In case, he is not allowed to file the written statement, he cannot set up his defence and cannot controvert the allegations levelled in the plaint and lead evidence. Learned counsel lastly prayed that the impugned order be set aside and that he may be permitted to file the written statement.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, who is the petitioner in CR-399-2026, has argued that the petitioner had deliberately not appeared despite service of summons. He is residing in the same house alongwith his father, who was also proceeded exparte initially but had joined the proceedings later on. The suit is pending for the last more than four years and now the application has been moved at a belated stage just to prolong the decision of the case and she prayed that the impugned order, vide which the petitioner has been allowed to join the proceedings, be set aside in toto and the application moved by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 7 CPC be dismissed.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the suit in hand was instituted on 14.02.2022 and notice was ordered to be issued to the defendants for 24.03.2022. On the summons issued to defendant No.2/petitioner Anmol Singh for 24.03.2022, a report was made on 02.03.2022 that defendant No.2/petitioner Anmol Singh could not be met at the spot. Thereafter, the Process Server again visited the village on 23.03.2022 and made a report that inquiry was made regarding Anmol Singh, who was not present at the spot. No other family member was ready to accept the summons and he affixed one copy of the summons along with the plaint at the door of the house. He has also reported that the Chowkidar too wa