Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) MADAN Lal has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Fazilka, dated 2nd of January, 1979 by which he was debarred from filing any objections.
(2.) IT is vehemently contended by Mr. Suresh Amba, learned counsel, that the petitioner should not suffer for the absence of his counsel who was busy in some other case and that the learned Subordinate Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in debarring the petitioner from filing any reply. After hearing the learned counted for the parties I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, as is evident from the order, was present in the court at the time when the case was taken up by the trial Court at 3 P.M. It looks that his counsel could not appear as he was busy somewhere else. It is conceded on behalf of the contesting respondent that the objections were filed in the Court next day and that the same have been placed on the record by the order of the Court, dated 6th of January, 1979.
(3.) IN the peculiar circumstances of this case, I find that the learned Subordinate Judge should have allowed some more time to respondent No. 2 (Petitioner) to file the objections. In this view of the matter, I allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated 2nd of January, 1979. As earlier observed, that objections have already been filed and form part of the record. The trial Court would take them into consideration while deciding the merits.;