This order dismissed the application of the respondent, who had appeared in person but absented himself, seeking to set aside ex-parte orders made against him in a civil revision.
Application to set aside ex-parte orders dismissed.
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.
Civil Revision No.201 of 2010(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M.Nos.4118-19-CII of 2013 in Civil Revision No.201 of 2010 Date of Order: 22.02.2013.
Smt. Uma Devi and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Manoj ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The applicant, inter-alia , prays for setting aside orders dated 26.04.2011 and 16.05.2011, whereby Civil Revision No.201 of 2010, has been allowed ex-parte against the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant-respondent submits that, though, he was appearing in person, he could not put in appearance on the date fixed due to financial constraints. It is further submitted that as the order, subject matter of the revision, was passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Hissar, the petitioners were required to file an appeal and not a revision. The impugned orders may, therefore, be re-called and the revision petition may be heard on merits.
A due consideration of the application and arguments
Civil Revision No.201 of 2010(O&M)
-2-
addressed, do not entitle the applicant to any relief. The applicant's plea that he did not possess sufficient funds and, therefore, could not appear before this Court on 26.04.2011 and 16.05.2011, is a clear after-thought. The applicant appeared in person and, thereafter, voluntarily absented himself. Therefore, there can be no reason for him to plead financial constraints as justification for his absence. The applicant's plea that the revision was not maintainable, may have been a ground for rejecting the revision but cannot be a ground to set aside the exparte order on the ground that adequate opportunity was not granted to him to address arguments.
Dismissed.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE
February 22, 2013 nt
Smt. Uma Devi and another
Manoj
Rajive Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
