High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/5418/2010dismissed

(O&M) Chattar Singh v. Sardyal Singh Parmar

2019-02-27Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal2 pages

Civil Revision No.5418 of 2010 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5418 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Order:27.02.2019 Chattar Singh ..Petitioner

Versus

Sardyal Singh Parmar ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. R.K.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for the respondent.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) Defendant-petitioner is in the revision petition against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.04.2007. It has come on record that the defendant-petitioner in the suit had appeared through counsel and thereafter he was proceeded against exparte on 01.12.2006 as neither he nor his counsel appeared on the date fixed. The judgment and decree was passed on 05.04.2007. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside an ex-parte judgment and decree as well as proceedings on the ground that his counsel had given him wrong date i.e. 06.09.2007. Defendant-petitioner even in the proceedings for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree did not come forward to face cross-examination. His statement in chief was filed by way NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.06 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Civil Revision No.5418 of 2010 (O&M) -2of affidavit, however, he did not choose to appear and face crossexamination. The plea taken by the defendant-petitioner to set aside a judgment and decree, remained unsubstantiated. Still further defendantpetitioner is a non-serious litigant. He did not even file written statement after having appeared in the court through counsel. After going through the orders passed by both the courts below, this court is of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction particularly when counsel has failed to point out any substantive error, material irregularity or perversity in the orders. The revision petition is dismissed.

February 27, 2019 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.06 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh