IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1369 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.3.2009 Smt. Santra and others ......Petitioners Versus Virender and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Satwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.9.1995 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nuh in case No.481 of 1993 whereby suit of the petitioners was dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 CPC and the order dated 20.2.1998 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Nuh, District Gurgaon whereby application for restoration of the aforesaid order dated 8.9.1995 was dismissed. As per the averments made in this revision petition, the petitioners filed a civil suit against the respondents for declaration to the effect that decree dated 12.9.1992 passed by the Court of Sh. A.K. Bimal, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nuh in civil suit No.527 of 27.8.1992 and alleged adoption deed dated 26.3.1993 are illegal, void and liable to be set aside. The aforesaid suit was dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 CPC vide order dated 8.9.1995. The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit. However, the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 20.2.1998. The petitioners, thereafter filed a fresh suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the CR No.1369 of 2009 -2- respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nuh. The said suit was dismissed by holding that the suit of the petitioners was barred under Order 9 rule 9 CPC. Thereafter, the present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nuh whereby suit of the petitioners was dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 CPC and thereafter, the application for restoration of the same was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the order dated 20.2.1998 shows that in the restoration application, the petitioners failed to lead their evidence in support of their case in spite of the fact that ample opportunity was given to them and in those circumstances, the trial Court closed their evidence under Order 17 rule 3 CPC. Since no evidence was placed on record by the petitioners for proving the contents of their application for restoration, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 20.2.1998 and also observed that the same is time barred as no explanation was forthcoming for filing the application for restoration beyond the period of 30 days. Even before this Court, the present revision petition challenging orders dated 8.9.1995 and 20.2.1998 has been filed after a lapse of 11 years for which no satisfactory explanation has been submitted for approaching this Court after such an inordinate delay. Even on merits, the petitioners have failed to substantiate their case. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. No merits. Dismissed. March 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE