AT CHANDIGARH 119 CR-4102-2025 Date of decision: 17.07.2025 JASSJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Versus ESTATE OFFICE, UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Addl. Standing counsel for respondent No.1. ***** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN , J. 1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby an application filed by respondent- defendant No.3 through a Power of Attorney for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed. However, in the present petition, the challenge is to the observations made in para No.5 of the said impugned order, which reads as under: "Therefore, in the considered view of the Court, though the defendant no. 3 being party to the suit and contentedly being not earlier aware about the pendency of this suit, is liable to be allowed to join the proceedings on the principal of audi alterem partem, yet the application of defendant no. 3 is not maintainable on technical grounds, since he seeks to appear through his Power of Attorney Holder Sunil Kumar Gupta, but the Power of Attorney annexed with the application does not pertain to the suit property. Therefore, the application in hand ought to be disallowed on technical grounds." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners- plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are the owners in POONAM BHATT 2025.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment respondent-defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex parte on 01.09.2021, and subsequently, the respondent-defendant No.3 through a Power of attorney filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order. 3. A limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Civil Judge has though dismissed the said application since the power of attorney was not pertaining to the property in question, however, he made the aforesaid observations in para No.5 of the impugned order, which were not required and such observations would prejudice the rights of the petitioners in subsequent petition, if filed any. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper- book. 5. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 6. The main application stands dismissed. The observations made by the Civil Judge in para No.5 as aforesaid are not binding to any subsequent application, if filed by or on behalf of respondent No.3. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. 8. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to file an application for recalling of this order, if so advised, since the order is being passed in their absence. (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE 17.07.2025 P.Bhatt Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM BHATT 2025.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment