IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 Malkit Singh Mohinder Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. India has been filed by the defendant No.2 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3) passed by learned trial Court vide which the petitioner has been proceeded against ex parte petitioner pleaded no instructions 04.02.2025 (Annexure P6) vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 2. order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3), the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte before the learned trial Court had pleaded petitioner. Learned counsel contends that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Malkit Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann for the petitioner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.2 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3) passed by learned trial Court vide which the petitioner has been proceeded against ex parte petitioner pleaded no instructions; and further for setting aside order dated 025 (Annexure P6) vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3), the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte by the learned trial Court as counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court had pleaded earned counsel contends that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2592-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.2 for setting aside order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3) passed by learned trial Court vide which the petitioner has been proceeded against ex parte as the counsel for the further for setting aside order dated 025 (Annexure P6) vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3), the petitioner was proceeded by the learned trial Court as counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court had pleaded ‘no instructions’ from the earned counsel contends that before proceeding against ex 10 petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of for setting aside order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3) passed by learned trial Court vide which the the counsel for the further for setting aside order dated 025 (Annexure P6) vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P3), the petitioner was proceeded by the learned trial Court as counsel for the petitioner from the before proceeding against ex SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document parte against the petitioner, it was incu to issue notice to the petitioner. It is could not have proceeded ex parte against the petitioner without issuing notice to the petitioner. In judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 34819 facts and circumstances of the case be said to be at fault and 3. in “Smt. Jagdish Kaur 4. petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P4) seeking setting the ex parte order dated 11.11.2024 the petitioner should have been allowed to tender evidence. 5. petitioner was proceeded against ex parte against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to issue notice to the petitioner. It is reiterated could not have proceeded ex parte against the petitioner without issuing notice to the petitioner. In support judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malkiat Singh Vs. Joginder Singh” Law Finder Doc ID # 34819, wherein it is held that: “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9 Rule 13 Setting aside of - Appellants were neither careless nor - They had engaged a counsel and defending the suit Court which had admittedly not issued any notice to the appellants after their counsel had reported no instructions should have proceeded in the case from the stage when the counsel reported no instructions facts and circumstances of the case be said to be at fault and they should not suffer. 1993 (Supp) 3 SCC 256 followed. Learned counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court “Smt. Jagdish Kaur Bagga Vs. Jarnail Singh” Law Finder Doc ID # 349928 Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P4) seeking setting the ex parte order dated 11.11.2024. Learned counsel contends that once the petitioner had filed the application at least at that stage, the petitioner should have been allowed to tender evidence. It is further submitted that petitioner was proceeded against ex parte the respondent no. 1 i.e. mbent upon the learned trial Court reiterated that the learned trial Court could not have proceeded ex parte against the petitioner without first support, learned counsel relies upon “Malkiat Singh Vs. Joginder Singh” wherein it is held that:- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9 Rule 13 - Ex-parte decree - Appellants were neither careless nor negligent They had engaged a counsel and defending the suit - The trial Court which had admittedly not issued any notice to the appellants after their counsel had reported no instructions should have proceeded in the case from the stage when the reported no instructions - Appellants cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case be said to be at fault and they should not suffer. 1993 (Supp) 3 SCC 256 followed.” Learned counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court Bagga Vs. Jarnail Singh” Law Finder Doc ID # 349928. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P4) seeking setting aside of . Learned counsel contends that once had filed the application at least at that stage, the petitioner should have been allowed to tender evidence. submitted that on 11.11.2024, when the parte the respondent no. 1 i.e. 10 mbent upon the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court first upon “Malkiat Singh Vs. Joginder Singh” - negligent The trial Court which had admittedly not issued any notice to the appellants after their counsel had reported no instructions should have proceeded in the case from the stage when the Appellants cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case be said to be at fault and Learned counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with aside of . Learned counsel contends that once had filed the application at least at that stage, the petitioner when the parte the respondent no. 1 i.e. SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Mohinder Singh was already being cross examined by the counsel for the pro-forma respondent no.6 and further the remaining cross examination was deferred for the next date i.e. on 28.11.2024. So, it was not the situation that the respondent no.1 was not being cross examine it was also not possible that on the same day itse examination on behalf of the counsel for the been completed as yet then the counsel for the petitioner would have started the cross examination in between by stopping the ongoing cross examination by the couns on 11.11.2024, even if counsel no instructions said witness i.e. Mohinder Singh as cross examination by the counsel for pro-formarespondent no.6 was also going on, so there was no occasion for the ld. Trial court to proceed him ex i.e. on 28.11.2024, the said Mohinder Singh was again cross examined by the counsel for dated 28.11.2024 6. for setting aside the ex 18.12.2024, no other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the trial Court could have simply given opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid witness namely Mohinder Singh but the ld. Trial Mohinder Singh was already being cross examined by the counsel for the respondent no.6 and further the remaining cross examination was deferred for the next date i.e. on 28.11.2024. So, it was not the situation that the respondent no.1 was not being cross examine it was also not possible that on the same day itse examination on behalf of the counsel for the been completed as yet then the counsel for the petitioner would have started the cross examination in between by stopping the ongoing cross examination by the counsel for pro-forma respondent no.6. on 11.11.2024, even if counsel for the petitioner no instructions,the petitioner was not in a situation to cross examine the said witness i.e. Mohinder Singh as cross examination by the counsel for respondent no.6 was also going on, so there was no occasion for the ld. Trial court to proceed him ex parte. Even further, on the i.e. on 28.11.2024, the said Mohinder Singh was again cross examined by the counsel for pro-formarespondent no.6 dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P-7). Ld. Counsel further submits that aside the ex parte order dated 11.11.2024 was moved on 18.12.2024, no other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the trial ourt could have simply given opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid witness namely Mohinder Singh but the ld. Trial Mohinder Singh was already being cross examined by the counsel for the respondent no.6 and further the remaining cross examination was deferred for the next date i.e. on 28.11.2024. So, it was not the situation that the respondent no.1 was not being cross examined at all and it was also not possible that on the same day itself when the cross examination on behalf of the counsel for the pro-forma respondent has not been completed as yet then the counsel for the petitioner would have started the cross examination in between by stopping the ongoing cross respondent no.6. In other words the petitioner would not have pleaded was not in a situation to cross examine the said witness i.e. Mohinder Singh as cross examination by the counsel for respondent no.6 was also going on, so there was no occasion for parte. Even further, on the next date i.e. on 28.11.2024, the said Mohinder Singh was again cross examined by respondent no.6, as evident from zimni order Ld. Counsel further submits that when the application parte order dated 11.11.2024 was moved on 18.12.2024, no other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the trial ourt could have simply given opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid witness namely Mohinder Singh but the ld. Trial 10 Mohinder Singh was already being cross examined by the counsel for the respondent no.6 and further the remaining cross examination was deferred for the next date i.e. on 28.11.2024. So, it was not the at all and lf when the cross respondent has not been completed as yet then the counsel for the petitioner would have started the cross examination in between by stopping the ongoing cross In other words would not have pleaded was not in a situation to cross examine the said witness i.e. Mohinder Singh as cross examination by the counsel for respondent no.6 was also going on, so there was no occasion for next date i.e. on 28.11.2024, the said Mohinder Singh was again cross examined by zimni order cation parte order dated 11.11.2024 was moved on 18.12.2024, no other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the trial ourt could have simply given opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid witness namely Mohinder Singh but the ld. Trial SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document court failed to apply its judicious mind and dismissed the applicati illegally. 7. consider the fact that the counsel for the petitioner had told the petitioner that he need not to appear on each and every date and he will diligently contest his case but when the petitioner contacted his counsel then he clearly stated that since his fees has not been cleared so he had pleaded no instructions and court has further pro petitioner in these circumstances was not at fault. that the impugned orders be set aside. 8. 9. perused the case file in great detail. advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 10. that before proceeding ex parte against the petitioner the petitioner had pleaded no instructions learned trial Court to issue notice to the petitioner. In support, counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh (supra). judgment as the facts of the present case are somewhat different; as have court failed to apply its judicious mind and dismissed the applicati It is lastly submitted that consider the fact that the counsel for the petitioner had told the petitioner that he need not to appear on each and every date and he will diligently contest his case but when the petitioner contacted his counsel then he y stated that since his fees has not been cleared so he had pleaded no instructions and court has further proceeded him ex petitioner in these circumstances was not at fault. that the impugned orders be set aside. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It has firstly been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before proceeding ex parte against the petitioner the petitioner had pleaded no instructions, it learned trial Court to issue notice to the petitioner. In support, counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh (supra). However, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the said judgment as the facts of the present case are somewhat different; as have court failed to apply its judicious mind and dismissed the application that the ld. trial Court failed to consider the fact that the counsel for the petitioner had told the petitioner that he need not to appear on each and every date and he will diligently contest his case but when the petitioner contacted his counsel then he y stated that since his fees has not been cleared so he had pleaded no ceeded him ex parte, thus, the petitioner in these circumstances was not at fault. It is accordingly prayed No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner and I find no merit in the submissions submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before proceeding ex parte against the petitioner because counsel for , it was obligatory on part of the learned trial Court to issue notice to the petitioner. In support, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkiat However, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the said judgment as the facts of the present case are somewhat different; as have 10 on ourt failed to consider the fact that the counsel for the petitioner had told the petitioner that he need not to appear on each and every date and he will diligently contest his case but when the petitioner contacted his counsel then he y stated that since his fees has not been cleared so he had pleaded no parte, thus, the It is accordingly prayed and I find no merit in the submissions submitted on behalf of the petitioner because counsel for obligatory on part of the learned Malkiat However, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the said judgment as the facts of the present case are somewhat different; as have SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been comprehensively recorded impugned order dated 04.02.2025, which read file reveals that issues in this suit were framed on 15.07.2023 for cross been comprehensively recorded by the learned trial Court in Para 4 of the order dated 04.02.2025, which read “4. The applicant/defendant No.2 seeks setting aside of exparte proceedings ordered vide order dated 11.11.2024 on the ground that previous counsel Sh. Advocate told the applicant/defendant no. 2 that his physical presence was not required in the court, however, perusal of the file reveals that issues in this suit were framed on 15.07.2023 and affidavit by Mohinder Singh (PW1) was t 06.09.2023 but his cross-examination was deferred on the request of learned counsels for defendants. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 08.11.2023. Mohinder Singh (PW1) remained present to face cross- learned counsel for none of the defendants cross witness. On that day, Mohinder Singh (PW1) suffered a detailed statement that he carries on work for gain in Delhi and only comes to Nakodar for deposition in the present case by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 5,000/ and likewise from Nakodar to Delhi but learned counsel for defendants were not intentionally cross considering the statement of Mohinder Singh (PW1), the court of Ms. Jublee, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Di of Rs. 1,500/- upon each defendant while adjourning the case for cross-examination of Mohinder Singh. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 06.12.2023. On 06.12.2023 Mohinder Singh (PW1) was present but partly cross learned counsel for defendant no. 1. counsel for defendant no. 2 did not start with the cross examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1). Thereafter, Mohinder by the learned trial Court in Para 4 of the order dated 04.02.2025, which reads as follows:- The applicant/defendant No.2 seeks setting aside of exparte proceedings ordered vide order dated 11.11.2024 on the ground that previous counsel Sh. Balwinder Singh Lohra, Advocate told the applicant/defendant no. 2 that his physical presence was not required in the court, however, perusal of the file reveals that issues in this suit were framed on 15.07.2023 and affidavit by Mohinder Singh (PW1) was tendered on examination was deferred on the request of learned counsels for defendants. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 08.11.2023. Mohinder Singh (PW1) -examination on 08.11.2023 but unsel for none of the defendants cross-examined the witness. On that day, Mohinder Singh (PW1) suffered a detailed statement that he carries on work for gain in Delhi and only comes to Nakodar for deposition in the present case by of Rs. 5,000/- from Delhi to Nakodar and likewise from Nakodar to Delhi but learned counsel for defendants were not intentionally cross-examining him. After considering the statement of Mohinder Singh (PW1), the court of Ms. Jublee, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar imposed a cost upon each defendant while adjourning the case examination of Mohinder Singh. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 06.12.2023. On 06.12.2023 Mohinder Singh (PW1) was present but partly cross-examined by counsel for defendant no. 1. On that day, learned counsel for defendant no. 2 did not start with the cross- examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1). Thereafter, Mohinder 10 by the learned trial Court in Para 4 of the The applicant/defendant No.2 seeks setting aside of exparte proceedings ordered vide order dated 11.11.2024 on Balwinder Singh Lohra, Advocate told the applicant/defendant no. 2 that his physical presence was not required in the court, however, perusal of the file reveals that issues in this suit were framed on 15.07.2023 endered on examination was deferred on the request of learned counsels for defendants. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 08.11.2023. Mohinder Singh (PW1) examination on 08.11.2023 but examined the witness. On that day, Mohinder Singh (PW1) suffered a detailed statement that he carries on work for gain in Delhi and only comes to Nakodar for deposition in the present case by from Delhi to Nakodar and likewise from Nakodar to Delhi but learned counsel for examining him. After considering the statement of Mohinder Singh (PW1), the court vn.), Nakodar imposed a cost upon each defendant while adjourning the case examination of Mohinder Singh. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 06.12.2023. On 06.12.2023 Mohinder y On that day, learned - examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1). Thereafter, Mohinder SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from Delhi and present in the court since morning but was Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar again imposed a cost of Rs. 1,500/ facing cross Singh (PW1) appeared on 18.04.2024 but on that day also proxy counsel appeared for defendant no. 1 whereas no one appeared for defendant no. 2. On that day also, the file had to be taken up four times in the entire day but again learned counsel for defendant no. 1 partly cross Learned counsel for defendant no. 2 a the cross-examination of witness. On that day also Mohinder Singh (PW1) suffered a detailed statement that he had come from Delhi and present in the court since morning but was being harassed by defendants intentionally. After consi the submission of the witness, the court of Ms. Jublee, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar again imposed a cost of Rs. 1,500/ upon the defendants. Thereafter Mohinder Singh (PW1) remained present for cross-examination in the court on 18.07.2024 but on that day lawyers abstained from work and consequently cross-examination of Mohinder Singh had to be deferred. Mohinder Singh (PW1) again returned for cross examination on 23.10.2024 but was again cross learned counsel for defendant no. 1 defendant no. 2 did not start with the cross witness. Mohinder Singh (PW1) again returned to the court for facing cross-examination on 11.11.2024 but on that day of hearing, learned counsel for defendant no. 2 plead instructions from defendant no. 2 several times, none appeared for defendant no. 2, consequently defendant no. 2 was proceeded exparte. day, Mohinder Singh (PW1) was partly cross learned counsel for defendant no. 1. After being fed up with the attitude of defendants, Mohinder Singh (PW1) requested to fix a specific time in the morning session of the court for his cross Singh (PW1) appeared on 18.04.2024 but on that day also r defendant no. 1 whereas no one On that day also, the file had to be taken up four times in the entire day but again learned counsel for defendant no. 1 partly cross-examined the witness. Learned counsel for defendant no. 2 again did not start with examination of witness. On that day also Mohinder Singh (PW1) suffered a detailed statement that he had come from Delhi and present in the court since morning but was being harassed by defendants intentionally. After considering the submission of the witness, the court of Ms. Jublee, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar again imposed a cost of Rs. 1,500/- upon the defendants. Thereafter Mohinder Singh (PW1) examination in the court on ut on that day lawyers abstained from work and examination of Mohinder Singh had to be deferred. Mohinder Singh (PW1) again returned for cross- examination on 23.10.2024 but was again cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant no. 1 only. Learned counsel for defendant no. 2 did not start with the cross-examination of witness. Mohinder Singh (PW1) again returned to the court for examination on 11.11.2024 but on that day of hearing, learned counsel for defendant no. 2 pleaded no instructions from defendant no. 2. After calling upon the case several times, none appeared for defendant no. 2, consequently defendant no. 2 was proceeded exparte. On that day, Mohinder Singh (PW1) was partly cross-examined by fendant no. 1. After being fed up with the attitude of defendants, Mohinder Singh (PW1) requested to fix a specific time in the morning session of the court for his cross- 10 Singh (PW1) appeared on 18.04.2024 but on that day also r defendant no. 1 whereas no one On that day also, the file had to be taken up four times in the entire day but again learned examined the witness. gain did not start with examination of witness. On that day also Mohinder Singh (PW1) suffered a detailed statement that he had come from Delhi and present in the court since morning but was dering the submission of the witness, the court of Ms. Jublee, Ld. Civil - upon the defendants. Thereafter Mohinder Singh (PW1) examination in the court on ut on that day lawyers abstained from work and examination of Mohinder Singh had to be - examined by Learned counsel for examination of witness. Mohinder Singh (PW1) again returned to the court for examination on 11.11.2024 but on that day of ed no . After calling upon the case several times, none appeared for defendant no. 2, On that examined by fendant no. 1. After being fed up with the attitude of defendants, Mohinder Singh (PW1) requested to fix - SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jhand, Advocate was filed with the allegation that previous file the instant application and recall Mohinder Singh (PW1) examination so that he does not have to wait till evening and is able to reach his house in Delhi before its too late in the evening. Considering the request of Mohinder Singh (PW1), this court directed the learned counsel for defendant no. 1 to start with the cross-examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1) on the next date of hearing at or befo remaining cross-examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1) on behalf of defendant no. 1 was conducted by learned counsel for defendant no. 1, however, none appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 18.12.2024 for remaining evidence of plaintiff. On 18.12.2024 the instant application through counsel Sh. Jagroop Singh Jhand, Advocate was filed with the allegation that previous counsel directed the applicant/defendant no. 2 to not come to the court as presence was not required in the court. The previous counsel of defendant no. 2 namely Balwinder Singh Lohra, Advocate might have told defendant no. 2 that his physical presence was not required, however, the record reveals on the previous date of hearing also tha 1 was not personally attending each and every date of hearing. The record itself revealed that Mohinder Singh (PW1) had to appear on numerous opportunities for conclusion of his cross examination and had to wait the entire day. Now, when defendants exhausted all means to seek adjournment, then defendant no. 2 got himself proceeded exparte with a vision to file the instant application and recall Mohinder Singh (PW1) once again for cross-examination. no. 2 speaks volume that absence wa consequently no ground to set aside exparte proceedings is made out. Accordingly, finding no merit in the contention examination so that he does not have to wait till evening and is use in Delhi before its too late in the evening. Considering the request of Mohinder Singh (PW1), this court directed the learned counsel for defendant no. 1 to start examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1) on the next date of hearing at or before 11 AM. On 28.11.2024 of Mohinder Singh (PW1) on behalf of defendant no. 1 was conducted by learned counsel for however, none appeared on behalf of Thereafter the case was adjourned to 024 for remaining evidence of plaintiff. On 18.12.2024 the instant application through counsel Sh. Jagroop Singh Jhand, Advocate was filed with the allegation that previous counsel directed the applicant/defendant no. 2 to not come to was not required in the court. The previous counsel of defendant no. 2 namely Balwinder Singh Lohra, Advocate might have told defendant no. 2 that his physical presence was not required, however, the record reveals on the previous date of hearing also that defendant no. was not personally attending each and every date of hearing. The record itself revealed that Mohinder Singh (PW1) had to appear on numerous opportunities for conclusion of his cross- examination and had to wait the entire day. Now, when d all means to seek adjournment, then defendant no. 2 got himself proceeded exparte with a vision to file the instant application and recall Mohinder Singh (PW1) examination. The conduct of defendant no. 2 speaks volume that absence was not intentional and consequently no ground to set aside exparte proceedings is Accordingly, finding no merit in the contention 10 examination so that he does not have to wait till evening and is use in Delhi before its too late in the evening. Considering the request of Mohinder Singh (PW1), this court directed the learned counsel for defendant no. 1 to start examination of Mohinder Singh (PW1) on the On 28.11.2024 of Mohinder Singh (PW1) on behalf of defendant no. 1 was conducted by learned counsel for however, none appeared on behalf of Thereafter the case was adjourned to 024 for remaining evidence of plaintiff. On 18.12.2024 the instant application through counsel Sh. Jagroop Singh Jhand, Advocate was filed with the allegation that previous counsel directed the applicant/defendant no. 2 to not come to was not required in the court. The previous counsel of defendant no. 2 namely Balwinder Singh Lohra, Advocate might have told defendant no. 2 that his physical presence was not required, however, the record t defendant no. was not personally attending each and every date of hearing. The record itself revealed that Mohinder Singh (PW1) had to - examination and had to wait the entire day. Now, when d all means to seek adjournment, then defendant no. 2 got himself proceeded exparte with a vision to file the instant application and recall Mohinder Singh (PW1) The conduct of defendant s not intentional and consequently no ground to set aside exparte proceedings is Accordingly, finding no merit in the contention SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. cross examination of the plaintiff was deliberately delayed recalcitrant attitude of the defendants, Mohinder Singh had to travel from Delhi to Nakodar for recording his evidence. As such, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied upon judgments. 12. recent judgment of Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi) : 887148, wherein it has been held raised by the applicant/defendant no.2, application in hand stands dismissed.” From the above facts, it is cl cross examination of the plaintiff was deliberately delayed recalcitrant attitude of the defendants, despite the fact that Mohinder Singh had to travel from Delhi to Nakodar for recording his As such, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied upon In these circumstances, reference can be made to a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of “ Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi) : wherein it has been held that: “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the raised by the applicant/defendant no.2, application in hand From the above facts, it is clear that in the present case, cross examination of the plaintiff was deliberately delayed by the despite the fact that the plaintiff Mohinder Singh had to travel from Delhi to Nakodar for recording his As such, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied upon In these circumstances, reference can be made to a the Delhi High Court in case of “Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake lumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of s is a theory put forth by the 10 raised by the applicant/defendant no.2, application in hand ear that in the present case, the the plaintiff Mohinder Singh had to travel from Delhi to Nakodar for recording his As such, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied upon In these circumstances, reference can be made to a Moddus Media Pvt. Law Finder Doc Id # “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake lumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of s is a theory put forth by the SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. purpose is to allow a defendant to appear and be heard in a case even if an ex parte order has been passed. However, to permit this, it is necessary for the defendants to show “good ca the present case, the only reason cited by the petitioner for non appearance is that he was instructed by his counsel not to appear. The same does not constitute “good cause”. To the contrary, from the facts recor above, it would appear that the petitioner has made all attempts to obfuscate due process of law and deliberately cause harassment to the plaintiff. The procedural laws are the handmaids of Justice and cannot be misused to derail the process of law or application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was correctly dismissed. appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what different f pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the consequences.” Even in an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the purpose is to allow a defendant to appear and be heard in a case even if an ex parte order has been passed. However, to permit this, it is necessary for the defendants to show “good cause” for their previous non the present case, the only reason cited by the petitioner for non appearance is that he was instructed by his counsel not to appear. The same does not constitute “good cause”. To the contrary, from the facts recor above, it would appear that the petitioner has made all attempts to obfuscate due process of law and deliberately cause harassment to the plaintiff. The procedural laws are the handmaids of Justice and cannot be misused to derail the process of law or application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was correctly appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the Even in an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the purpose is to allow a defendant to appear and be heard in a case even if an ex parte order has been passed. However, to permit this, it is necessary for use” for their previous non-appearance. In the present case, the only reason cited by the petitioner for non- appearance is that he was instructed by his counsel not to appear. The same does not constitute “good cause”. To the contrary, from the facts recorded above, it would appear that the petitioner has made all attempts to obfuscate due process of law and deliberately cause harassment to the plaintiff. The procedural laws are the handmaids of Justice and cannot be misused to derail the process of law or to cause injustice. As such, application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was correctly 10 appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his rivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the Even in an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the purpose is to allow a defendant to appear and be heard in a case even if an ex parte order has been passed. However, to permit this, it is necessary for appearance. In - appearance is that he was instructed by his counsel not to appear. The same ded above, it would appear that the petitioner has made all attempts to obfuscate due process of law and deliberately cause harassment to the plaintiff. The procedural laws are the handmaids of Justice and cannot be to cause injustice. As such, application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was correctly SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. 15. 30.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: In view of the above, present petition is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document