##PAGE1##

CR-4120-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(115)

CR-4120-2026

Date of Decision:-15.05.2026

Sachin Garg

……Petitioner

Versus

Sunanda Greentech and Others

……Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

****

Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.04.2026 passed

by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, whereby

the application filed by respondent No.3 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2025,

proceeding against him ex parte, has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted

a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the

respondents/defendants with regard to a commercial showroom/building

situated on Mehla Road, Sangrur, which had been leased to the respondents

vide lease deed dated 24.06.2024. During pendency of the suit, the

defendants initially appeared through counsel on 25.09.2025, but

subsequently failed to pursue the matter and on 17.11.2025,

-1-

SHUBHAM

2026.05.19 15:38

I am the author of this

document

CR-4120-2026

respondents/defendants was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, the

petitioner led evidence and examined witnesses in support of his case.

Subsequently, respondent No.3 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7

CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings on the ground that he

had not been informed by his counsel regarding the next date of hearing.

The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 09.04.2026, allowed the

said application and permitted respondent No.3 to rejoin the proceedings

subject to payment of costs. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial

Court committed a material illegality in allowing the application at a highly

belated stage after substantial evidence had already been led by the

petitioner. It has been argued that respondent No.3 had initially appeared

through counsel but thereafter deliberately stopped appearing before the

Court and was rightly proceeded against ex parte on 17.11.2025. It is

further submitted that the explanation furnished by respondent No.3 that his

counsel failed to inform him regarding the next date of hearing is vague and

does not constitute sufficient cause for allowing the said application.

Learned counsel further contends that after the ex parte order was passed,

the petitioner had already examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and the matter

had substantially progressed. Therefore, allowing respondent No.3 to re-

enter the proceedings at such a stage has caused prejudice to the petitioner

and has unnecessarily delayed adjudication of the suit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the paper-book.

-2-

SHUBHAM

2026.05.19 15:38

I am the author of this

document

CR-4120-2026

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being

issued to respondents as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing

additional expenses to the respondent.

6. The principal question which arises for consideration before

this Court is whether the learned trial Court committed any material error in

allowing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. A perusal of the

impugned order reveals that while allowing the application, the learned trial

Court observed that an opportunity ought ordinarily to be afforded to a

party to contest the matter on merits and that procedural provisions are

intended to advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it. In pursuance

thereof, costs were also imposed upon respondent No.3. It is a settled

proposition of law that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and are

not to be construed in a manner that foreclose adjudication on merits,

particularly where denial of participation may result in serious civil

consequences. The object of Orde