- (1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two revision petitions i.e. C.R. No.2525 of 2012 and C.R. No.4701 of 2012, both titled as "Hukam Singh Vs. Maghar Singh & others". Both these revisions petitions have been preferred by defendant No.11 Hukam Singh and have arisen out of a single suit.
(2.) Defendant No.11-petitioner was served in the suit for 25.05.2010 and Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant No.11 in the trial court on the said date. However, presence of Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate was inadvertently not recorded by the trial court on 25.05.2010. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte along with some other defendants on 25.05.2010. In subsequent zimni orders of the trial court also, presence of defendant No.11 or his counsel was not recorded. On the other hand, vide order dated 18.11.2011, trial court struck off defence of defendant No.11 for non-filing of written statement observing that his defence should also have been struck off on 07.03.2011 (wrongly mentioned as 09.03.2011 in order dated 18.11.2011) when defence of some other defendants was struck off because defendant No.11 had appeared through counsel on 25.05.2010. To challenge the said order dated 18.11.2011, passed by the trial court, whereby defence of defendant No.11 was struck off, he has preferred this revision petition i.e. CR No.2525 of 2012.
(3.) While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 26.04.2012 in CR No.2525 of 2012, defendant No.11 was permitted to participate in the proceedings (in the trial court) with liberty even to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, as defendant No.11 had not sought setting aside of ex parte proceedings ordered against him on 25.05.2010. Pursuant to this observation in order dated 26.04.2012, defendant No.11 filed application in the trial court for setting aside ex parte proceedings against him ordered on 25.05.2010. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 31.05.2012 which is under challenge in CR No.4701 of 2012.;