Considering the trial court's discretion in setting aside an ex parte order at the initial stages of litigation, the High Court declined to interfere but directed disposal within one year.
Directed the trial court to dispose of the civil suit expeditiously within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.No.4465 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No.4465 of 2010 Date of decision:23.9.2010
Dharam Parkash
...Petitioner
vs
Lachhi Ram and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.5.2010 vide which the order dated 20.3.2003 whereby the defendant-respondents were proceeded against ex parte, has been set aside.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents were intentionally avoiding to appear in the proceedings in order to unnecessary prolong the case and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that even after passing of the ex parte order dated 20.3.2003 till the application for setting aside the aforesaid order was filed, no substantial progress had taken place and the case was at the initial stage, and even the written statement was not filed.
It is well settled proposition of law that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are handmaid for Administration of Justice and in
C.R.No.4465 of 2010
2
order to render substantial justice they are to be construed liberally. While setting aside the impugned order the trial court has exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant-respondents and no case is made out before this Court to interfere by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, in the aforesaid view of the matter no interference is warranted in the impugned order. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the civil suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from today.
Disposed of
( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
September 23, 2010
rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution warrants interference with the impugned order setting aside an ex parte decree.
Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to dispose of the civil suit expeditiously.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharam Parkash
Lachhi Ram
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
