IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1150-2026 Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Varun Jhamb and another ...Petitioners Versus Guljit Kapur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bawal whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners, who have been proceeded against ex-parte, had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and vide order dated 17.02.2025, the said application was disposed of with the observations that the petitioners can join the proceedings of the case from the stage where it has reached i.e., final arguments. It is submitted that the petitioners had challenged the said order and this Court, vide order dated

07.04.2025 passed in CR-1894-2025, had upheld the said order and in the said order, had reiterated the fact that the trial Court had permitted the petitioners to join the proceedings from the stage which it has reached i.e., final arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the present case, civil suit was never filed before the Commercial Court and even in case the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had jurisdiction to decide the case as a Commercial Court, then also the case had to be filed in the Commercial Court in the manner in which it is required to be filed in the Commercial Court. It is further submitted that the property in question is an industrial plot.

3. On a pointed query raised by this Court, it has been fairly stated that the petitioners have not laid hand on any judgment which enables the petitioners to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a case where the trial has reached the stage of final arguments and the petitioners have been proceeded against ex-parte and only right given to the petitioners is to address final arguments. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioners have not been able to justify the maintainability of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus prayed that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the present revision petition with liberty to raise all the pleas which are available to them at the time of final arguments including the plea raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the trial Court is directed to consider all the said pleas in accordance with law de hors the observations made in the order dated 03.01.2026.

4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present revision petition with liberty to raise all the pleas which are available to them, including the pleas raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, at the stage of final arguments and the trial Court is requested to decide the case after considering all the said pleas in accordance with law de hors the observations made in the impugned order dated 03.01.2026.

5. It is made clear that in case the respondents are aggrieved by the abovesaid order, it would be open to them to move an application for recalling of the said order.

6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

06.02.2026 (VIKAS BAHL)

Pawan JUDGE