IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 Civil Revision No.6052 of 2024 Date of decision: February 10^th, 2026 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Ram Kishan and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Naveen Batra and Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which an application under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 17.07.2024 vide which the defence of defendant No.1 was struck off, has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 10.10.2023 and in the said case, the defence of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was struck off on 17.07.2024 and respondent No.1 instead of filing a revision petition had moved an application under Section 151 CPC before the trial Court for setting aside the said order. It is submitted that the said application has been allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 26.09.2024. It is submitted that the order dated 26.09.2024 is illegal and against law inasmuch as an earlier order passed by the trial Court cannot be subsequently set aside/recalled by the same Court and it was open to the respondent to file a revision petition to challenge the order dated 17.07.2024 vide which the defence of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was struck off. It is submitted that in view of the same, the present revision petition be allowed and the order dated 26.09.2024 be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1:

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection in the present case. It is submitted that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, the written statement was filed on 05.10.2024 and cost imposed upon respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the order dated 26.09.2024 was also paid and was accepted by counsel for the plaintiff who had suffered a specific statement that he has received the cost ₹

of 4,000/- from defendant No.1 in the Court and the case was adjourned to 13.11.2024 for filing of replication. It is further submitted that although the present revision petition was drafted on 14.10.2024 and notice of motion in the present case was issued by a coordinate Bench on 21.10.2024 but the said fact with respect to payment of cost has not been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition and thus apart from the petitioner being estopped from challenging the impugned order, the petitioner is also guilty of concealment of material fact.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order dated 17.07.2024 which in effect was an application for recalling the earlier order dated 17.07.2024 and the said application is maintainable and in support of the said proposition, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.05.1990 tilted as Sucha Singh and others Versus The State of Punjab through The Collector, Faridkot and others reported as 1990(2) PLR 492.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and is of the opinion that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the order dated 26.09.2024 in view of the fact that the petitioner has accepted the cost, which was imposed by the said order, vide order dated 05.10.2024 and also that the order dated 26.09.2024 is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

6. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 26.09.2024, the application filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for setting aside the order dated 17.07.2024 (in effect seeking