Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. In a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the petitioners in the civil court at Kaithal, the petitioners were duly served, however, after filing the written statement, they started absenting and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.9.2000. An application filed on their behalf to set aside the order of exparte proceedings was also dismissed in default. Thereafter, the petitioners another application for setting aside the exparte proceedings which, too, has been dismissed by the learned civil court by an order dated 8.2.2005. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and meanwhile, further proceedings were stayed. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that the petitioners have acted in a negligent manner due to which not only they were proceeded against exparte but their application for setting aside the exparte proceedings was also dismissed in default. 4. However, in the interest of justice and with a view to give one more effective opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves, especially when the respondent-plaintiff has already led her evidence, the order, dated 5.9.2000, vide which the petitioners were proceeded against exparte, as well as the order under challenge, dated 8.2.2005, passed by the civil court are set aside to the extent that whatever proceedings have already taken place will not be re-opened, however, the petitioners, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent-plaintiff, shall be permitted to lead their evidence for which not more than two opportunities shall be granted to them and thereafter the suit shall be decided on merits. Petitioners Disposed of.