IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-6166-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 24.09.2025 Bhupinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

CM-18988-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for revival of the revision petition which was disposed of.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 08.09.2025 is recalled and the main petition is ordered to be restored to its original number.

CR-6166-2025

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Jalandhar, vide which the application moved by the defendant-respondent for setting aside the order dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Jalandhar vide which the defendant-respondent was proceeded against ex-parte, has been allowed.

2. The present petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of damages and for compensation. In the said suit it was shown that the respondent- defendant was resident of 91, Drewstead Road London SW 16 1 AD UK. The defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.05.2024 and had thereafter moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings on the plea that the defendant was living in U.K. and his counsel had been appearing on each and every date and had also filed written statement in the case but on 22.05.2024 the counsel for the applicant-defendant could not appear before the Court and thus, he was proceeded against ex-parte. It was further averred that the defendant had been hotly contesting the case and he wanted to participate in the case to defend the case and in case he was not allowed to participate in the same, then, great prejudice would be caused to him. Although, the application filed by the respondent-defendant has not been annexed with the present revision petition but the said facts are apparent from the reading of the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, which observations have not been shown to be perverse.

3. The trial Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 had observed that the case was at the initial stage and allowing the defendant to appear in the case would help in effective and proper disposal of the matter in dispute and as such the application filed by the defendant was allowed and the ex-parte proceedings against the defendant were set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.8000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The case was thereafter adjourned to 08.08.2025 for PWs as well as for payment of the cost of Rs.8000/-. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.08.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“……The present case is at the initial stage. No prejudice will be caused to the parties if the application in hand is allowed.

In the considered opinion of this court, allowing the defendant to appear in the present case at this stage of the case will help in effective and proper disposal of the matter in hand. As such present application is hereby allowed and and the exparte proceedings against defendant is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.8000/- to be paid by defendant to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that payment of cost shall be condition precedent for further adjudication of suit. Findings given above will have no effect on the merits of the case. Adjourned to 08.08.2025 for PWs. It is made clear to the counsel for defendant to paid the costs of Rs.8000/- to the opposite party on or before the next date of hearing from the passing of the said order, failing which ex parte order will stand.

Date of Order: 01.08.2025”

4. On 08.09.2025 when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, since zimni order dated 08.08.2025 and subsequent zimni orders had not been annexed, this Court was p