Disposed

Subhash Chand v. Kamla

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2011CR/463/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision under Article 227, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition on the ground that no effective proceedings took place after the ex parte order. The court set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner-defendant to join the proceedings, ruling that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 7.9.2010 is set aside and the petitioner-defendant is permitted to join the proceedings.

Subhash Chand Vs Kamla — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.463 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.463 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 21, 2011

Subhash Chand

.....Petitioner

Kamla

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 7.9.2010 passed by learned trial Court, vide which the application filed by the petitionerdefendant under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was dismissed.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

¶16

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 10.3.2010, the case was fixed for filing reply and consideration of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for ad interim injunction filed on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and however, as counsel for the petitioner-defendant was busy in some other court, he could not appear and petitioner was proceeded ex parte and however, no proceedings had taken place on that day and the case was just adjourned for consideration of the pending application. Further contends that on the same day, i.e., 10.3.2010, application was moved by counsel for the petitionerdefendant for setting aside the ex parte order, which was declined by learned trial Court, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Civil Revision No.463 of 2011 (O&M)

¶19

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is having right to join the proceedings at any stage and that no effective proceedings had taken place on 10.3.2010 and even since then no proceedings had taken place except various adjournments for deciding the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for setting aside ex parte proceedings.

¶20

In view of these facts, when no effective proceedings had taken place, on the day when petitioner-defendant was proceeded ex parte by learned trial Court and even on subsequent dates, he is having right to join the proceedings at any stage. No prejudice is going to be caused to respondent-plaintiff, if he is permitted to join the proceedings.

¶21

Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Petitioner-defendant is permitted to join the proceedings.

¶22

Disposed of accordingly.

¶23

21.1.2011

¶24

meenu

¶25

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Subhash Chand v. Kamla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand v. Kamla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Gopal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Paramjit Kaur Alias Pami and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Santosh Bhagat Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Budh Singh Vs Pritam Singh & Ors.

Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs Iqbal Singh