IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120)

Date of Decision:-12.02.2026 KEWAL KUMAR … Petitioner Versus MAHENDER SINGH ... Respondent -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, with Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure P-5), vide which the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC was allowed.

2. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration seeking annulment of the sale deed dated 05.01.2023 on account of non-payment of entire sale consideration. Respondent/defendant was served but failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte. The case was posted for evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff after about six months on 15.03.2024. He filed an application for setting aside ex parte order. The same was allowed vide order dated 17.05.2024 subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-. Cost were not paid on the adjourned date i.e. 09.07.2024 and another opportunity was granted subject to further cost of Rs.1,000/- and matter was posted for 30.07.2024. Again on that date, respondent/defendant failed to appear and he was again ordered to be proceeded ex parte. On 03.03.2025, after more than 07 months, respondent/defendant again filed an application for setting aside ex parte order on the allegations that earlier counsel did not inform him about the orders and his absence was not intentional or mala fide. The application was opposed by the petitioner but the Court vide impugned order allowed the application.

3. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the conduct of the respondent/defendant disentitles him from indulgence of the Court and allowing him to contest the suit on merits as he intentionally failed to appear in spite of the fact that ex parte order against him was earlier set aside subject to the payment of cost. He even failed to pay the cost subject to which the order was recalled by the learned Trial Court and petitioner has concluded his evidence by examining witnesses and respondent/defendant kept on watching the proceedings and filed another application. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that considering the conduct of the respondent/defendant, application filed by respondent was required to be dismissed and the revision petition be allowed.

5. I have gone through the file and the impugned order carefully.

6. The learned Civil Judge has noted entire conduct of the respondent/defendant in the impugned order but another opportunity was granted to the respondent/defendant in the interest of justice. So considering the fact that the learned Civil Judge has taken note of the conduct of the respondent/defendant and even thereafter in the interest of justice, one opportunity has been granted, the order cannot be said to be perverse and it is cardinal principal of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard and opportunity of hearing on merits has to be afforded however negligent the party may be, so, the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction and as such, the instant petition is dismissed.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court that on 05.02.206 when respondent/defendant was to pay the cost, subject to which ex parte proceedings were set aside has again not appeared but no such order has been uploaded on CIS, so he is unable to produce any such order and he is providing this information on the basis of information given by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law in case respondent/defendant has not tendered the cost subject to which ex parte proceedings were set aside or has not appeared on 05.02.2026.

8. As a natural corol