IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.63 of 2025 Decided on: 08.09.2025 Krishna Devi & others ..Petitioners Versus Dhani Ram & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 27th March, 2025, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anni, District Kullu, H.P. in Case No.28-6/2017. 2. The petitioners herein were the respondents in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as Case No.28-6/2017, 3. On 19th November, 2024, the petitioners had tendered evidence by way of affidavits and the matter was adjourned to 3rd January, 2025 for cross-examination of the witnesses. 4. On 3rd January, 2025, none appeared for the petitioners herein and they were proceeded against ex-parte. On 2 15th March, 2025, an application was filed by the petitioners herein for setting aside ex-parte order dated 3rd January, 2025. It was averred that on 3rd January, 2025, the petitioners were not having knowledge about the listing of case on 3rd January, 2025 as their counsel was admitted as an indoor patient at IGMC, Shimla and was later referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. According to the petitioners, the counsel remained admitted at AIIMS, New Delhi till 15th February, 2025 and thereafter he remained under treatment at Chandigarh and was later shifted to IGMC, Shimla on 24th February, 2025. 5. The application was contested by the respondents herein by filing reply. The averments made in the application were denied for want of knowledge. 6. Learned trial Court vide impugned order has dismissed the application of the petitioners herein on the ground that they had not filed along with the application any document evidencing the ill health and hospitalization of their counsel. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners herein were not afforded any opportunity to either produce the documents or to lead evidence after framing of issues. Once, the averments made in the application were found insufficient by learned trial Court, the proper course would have been to frame an issue and to allow the parties to prove their respective stands. 3 8. In absence of such an approach by learned trial Court, the apparent prejudice to the rights of the petitioners herein can be seen and for such reason the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Order dated 27th March, 2025, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anni, District Kullu, H.P. in Case No.28-6/2017 is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to decide the application of petitioners herein for setting aside ex-parte order dated 03.01.2025 afresh and if so required by framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. 9. The petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. 10. Parties to appear before learned trial Court on 20th September, 2025. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 08th September, 2025 (vt)