IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (155)

CR-1264-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: - 23.02.2026 Gurinder Kaur through Harsimran Singh (General Power of Attorney holder)

....Petitioner Versus Rajat Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Amarjot Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Three zimni orders passed by the trial Court are sought to be challenged in the present revision petition. The said three zimni orders dated 03.11.2025, 18.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 are reproduced herein below: -

“Present: Shri A.S.Kalra, Advocate for plaintiff.

None for defendants.

Notice issued to defendants received back served, but the defendants have not appeared. Waited sufficiently. It is 3:00 P.M. No further wait is justified. Hence, defendants are hereby proceeded exparte.

At this stage, an application for decreeing the suit has been moved by plaintiff. Now case is adjourned to 18.11.2025 for consideration on the said application.

(Munish Nagar)

CJ(SD)/Sirsa.

UID No.HR-319 Date of Order: 3.11.2025”

“Present: Shri A.S.Kalra, Advocate for plaintiff.

Defendants already exparte.

Today, case was fixed for arguments on application for decreeing the suit not advanced. Adjournment sought. Heard and allowed. Now case is adjourned to 11.12.2025 for consideration on the said application.

(Munish Nagar)

CJ(SD)/Sirsa.

UID No.HR-319 Date of Order: 18.11.2025”

“Present: Shri A.S.Kalra, Advocate for plaintiff.

Defendants already exparte.

Sh. Dharmender Chauhan, Adv.

For applicant/defendants.

Today, case was fixed for arguments on application for decreeing the suit. At this stage, an application for setting aside exparte order dt. 3.11.2025 against defendants has been moved. Same is taken on record. Now case is adjourned to 08.01.2026 for filing reply to the said application.

(Munish Nagar)

CJ(SD)/Sirsa.

UID No.HR-319 Date of Order: 11.12.2025”

2. On 03.11.2025, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte and thus, the petitioner could not possibly have any grievance regarding the same. On 18.11.2025, an adjournment was sought and apparently on behalf of the plaintiff, as no counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents-defendants and thus, the application for decreeing the suit was adjourned to 11.12.2025. It was specifically noticed that arguments on the said application had not been advanced. It is a matter of settled law that the observation made in judicial orders/judicial proceedings is presumed to be true. On 11.12.2025, the defendants had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 08.01.2026 for filing reply to the said application Further zimni orders dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) and dated 22.11.2026 (Annexure P-8) would show that no reply was filed by the present petitioner to the said application for setting aside the ex-parte order and thus, it is the present petitioner who is delaying the decision in the said application filed by the defendant for setting aside the ex-parte order.

3. It would be relevant to note that neither the application dated 03.11.2025 filed by the petitioner nor the application filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex-parte order has been decided and since no effective order has been passed prejudicing the rights of the present petitioner, thus, the present revision petition is not liable to be entertained.

4. As far as the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the application dated 03.11.2025 should be decided by the trial Court either along with the application for setting aside the ex-parte order or should be decided expeditiously in a time bound manner, suffice it to say that it is not for this Court to govern the roster/list of the trial Court and this Court is sanguine that the trial Court would proceed in accordance with law.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil”, reported as (2010) 8 Supreme