JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Vide order dated 2.5.2000 ex parte proceedings were ordered to be taken against Balkar Singh respondent (petitioner herein). He made an application on 16.5.2000 for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered to be taken against him vide order dated 2.5.2000. 2. Vide order dated 27.11.2000 that application was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar. It is this order dated 27.11.2000 which has been called in question by Balkar Singh through this revision. 3. It was a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs filed by Gurmit Singh against Balkar Singh. According to Balkar Singh, he was served on 30.4.2000 but on 30.4.2000, it happened to be Sunday and when he came to the court on 1.5.2000 he found that it was close day for courts being Labour Day. He came on 2.5.2000. He tried to engage counsel and when after lunch, he appeared in Court along with counsel, he came to know that he had already been proceeded against ex parte on 2.5.2000 before lunch. 4. Balkar Singh made application on 16.5.2000 for setting aside ex parte proceedings saying that his absence was not intentional but was bona fide. Gurmit Singh plaintiff contested the application urging that he (Balkar Singh defendant) was served for 8.4.2000 and the case was adjourned to 30.4.2000 for written statement. On 8.4.2000, Balkar Singh appeared and his signatures were obtained in the order sheet. He was rightly proceeded ex parte on 2.5.2000 as if 30.4.2000 and 1.5.2000 were close days, he was bound to appear on the working day following. 5. Vide impugned order dated 27.11.2000. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar refused to set aside ex parte proceedings saying that Balkar Singh had told a lie. When he was served for 8.4.2000 and he appeared in person on 8.4.2000 and the case was posted to 30.4.2000 for filing written statement, he ought to have stated these facts. 5. Vide impugned order dated 27.11.2000. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar refused to set aside ex parte proceedings saying that Balkar Singh had told a lie. When he was served for 8.4.2000 and he appeared in person on 8.4.2000 and the case was posted to 30.4.2000 for filing written statement, he ought to have stated these facts. He should not have stated that he was served for 30.4.2000 and when he reached the Court on 30.4.2000, he found it to be Sunday and when he came to the Court on 1.5.2000, he found the Court to be closed, it being holiday on account of Labour Day and he came to the Court on 2.5.2000, engaged counsel and when after lunch he appeared in Court along with his counsel he came to know that he had already been proceeded ex parte on 2.5.2000 before lunch. 6. Suffice it to say, fact remains that he was served for 8.4.2000 when the case was posted to 30.4.2000 for written statement. 30.4.2000 happened to be Sunday, case was taken up on 2.5.2000. On 2.5.2000, he was proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance. When he was served for 30.4.2000 which was Sunday and 1.5.2000 was close day, being Labour Day, Court ought to have issued process for his service over again for the adjourned date. Even otherwise, defendants right to contest the suit should not have been taken away on such a slight discrepancy. So, this revision is allowed. Ex parte proceedings taken against the petitioner-defendant Balkar Singh are set aside on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Revision allowed.