IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3688-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Antar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dhara Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh Phogat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

RA-CR-184-2025

1. This is an application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for review/modification of the order dated

11.11.2025 passed by this Court in the main revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that although the present application is stated to be the review application but the same be treated as an application for recalling the order dated 11.11.2025 as the counsel could not appear on account of personal difficulty.

3. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present review application is ordered to be treated as an application for recalling the order dated 11.11.2025 and the same is allowed and the order dated 11.11.2025 is recalled and the main revision petition is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby, an application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure P-5), has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case was listed for 06.12.2021 but his counsel before the trial Court had wrongly noted the date as 08.12.2021, and thus, the petitioner could not appear on 06.12.2021 and was proceeded against ex-parte. It is submitted that in case the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex- parte order is allowed, then, petitioner would file the written statement on the next date and would not delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the said application be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was duly served and his counsel had appeared on 19.02.2021 and thereafter, had appeared on several dates and had sought adjournments to file written statement but did not appear on 06.12.2021 and was rightly proceeded against ex-parte. It is submitted that, thereafter, on 07.04.2022, the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff had been completed and the case was fixed for ex-parte arguments. It is argued that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order had been filed on 13.03.2023 after much delay and no such application, immediately after 06.12.2021, was filed which shows that the only endeavour of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings in the suit for recovery filed by the respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and thus, deserves to be upheld.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order deserves to be upheld.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,56,250/- and the said suit was filed on 17.06.2020. On 19.02.2021, the petitioner had appeared through his counsel after being duly served and had sought an adjournment for filing written statement. Thereafter, again on 15.03.2021, a request was made by the counsel for the present petitioner/defendant for adjournment to file written statement. Even a perusal of order dated 18.08.2021 would show that written statement was not filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and again a request was made for filing the same and case was adjourned to 27.09.2021. On 27.09.2021 also, written statement was no