IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 150 of 2017 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Joginder Singh. .…Petitioner. Versus Sher Singh (deceased) through his LRs …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 20.02.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No. 129 of 2007. 2. Petitioner herein is one of the respondents in application under Order 39 Rule 2A 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7535 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the respondents herein before learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court proceeded against petitioner herein, ex parte on 06.08.2015 as none appeared for him, though the petitioner herein had been duly represented by a private counsel prior to such date. 3. An application for setting aside ex parte order dated 06.08.2015, was filed by the petitioner herein in the month of February, 2017, with the averments that he remained in confusion; as being a government servant, he had made a request for being represented through the Government Advocate. In these circumstances, he entertained an impression that he would be represented by a Government Advocate. He further stated that in February, 2017, when he visited the office of Government Advocate to ascertain the status of the case, he was apprised about the ex parte proceeding having been initiated against him w.e.f. 06.08.2015. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7535 ) 4. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application by recording that the averments made in the application were not correct as the petitioner herein has appeared before learned Trial Court on 16.11.2016 and had been made aware about the ex parte proceedings already taken against him. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner herein that even after 26.11.2017, he had not taken any steps for setting aside ex parte order till February, 2017, learned Trial Court dismissed the application. 5. In the instant petition, a ground has been raised by the petitioner that the application for setting aside ex parte order as filed before the learned Trial Court was not strictly as per his instructions. Though, he had disclosed to the Government Advocate correct facts but he had not incorporated the same in the application. 6. The ground so raised by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the Government 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7535 ) Advocate, against whom allegation is made, is not a party before this Court. In this absence, it will not be appropriate or legal to comment anything. 7. Thus, there is no merit in the petition. Petitioner has not been able to justify his remissness and negligence in not approaching the Court immediately after 26.11.2017. Further, there is also nothing on record to suggest that there was any consent from the Government Advocate at any point of time to represent the petitioner as one of the respondents in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, before learned Trial Court. 8. In result, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, shall have liberty to approach the learned Trial Court, seeking recall or review of order dated 20.02.2017, in accordance with law. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7535 ) 9. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 24th March, 2025 Judge (sushma)