JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) 1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, an order dated 8th March, 2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, setting aside the order 22.2.2005 whereby the petitioner’s suit was decreed exparte, has been assailed. 2. A perusal of the order under challenge reveals that on 19.1.2005, an order was passed by the learned trial court adjourning the case for 21.1.2005 so as to enable the defendant to file reply to an application dated 4.12.2004 under section 151 CPC. On 21.1.2005, it appears that the case was called several times but since no one appeared on behalf of the defendant, he was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter one more order was passed on that very day after 3.50 P.M. whereby plaintiff’s three witnesses were examined and the case was adjourned for consideration on 22.2.2005. On the said adjourned date, the suit was decreed exparte. 3. The respondent thereafter moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree. It was averred by him that he was under the bona fide impression that on 21.1.2005 the case was fixed for adjudication of the application dated 24.12.2004, which, in the absence of any reply by him, could at the best be allowed. Since the case was earlier not fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence on the said date, he was under the bona fide impression that no witness would be examined. The respondent also came out with an explanation as to how and in what circumstances his counsel could not appear and defend him. 4. The learned trial court, on the basis of pleadings, framed an issue as to whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the exparte decree or not. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court has formed a view that the proceedings held on 21.1.2005 after 3.50 P.M. and again on 22.2.2005 were in haste. 5. At this stage, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact no evidence was recorded on 21.1.2005, rather the witnesses were examined by the petitioner-plaintiff on 21.2.2005. 6. 5. At this stage, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact no evidence was recorded on 21.1.2005, rather the witnesses were examined by the petitioner-plaintiff on 21.2.2005. 6. Be that as it may, when the case on 21.1.2005 was listed for consideration of the application dated 4.12.2004, the trial court ought to have passed any order in accordance with law on the said application instead of proceeding against the defendant exparte in the main suit. 7. For the reason afore-mentioned, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. Dismissed.