Civil Revision No.2755 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2755 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.5.2011 Usha Khosla ......petitioner Versus Manjit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Ritu Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.4.1997. Vide order dated 16.1.2006, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed in default. An application was moved on 27.4.2006 for restoration of the suit by the plaintiffs. Vide the impugned order dated 12.2.2011, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The suit was fixed for defendant’s evidence on 16.1.2006. However, on the said date, none of the parties appeared before the trial Court and the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) passed the following order:- “Today nobody has turned up on behalf of either of the parties despite calling the case several times since Civil Revision No.2755 of 2011 (O&M) 2 morning. It is already 3.30 p.m. Present suit of the plaintiff stand dismissed in default. File be consigned to record room.” Thereafter, an application was moved for restoration of the suit on 27.4.2006 by the plaintiffs through their attorney. The plaintiffs have examined some of their witnesses and the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order on 13.12.2005 and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 23.12.2005 for defendant’s evidence. On the said date, examination-in-chief of one of the defendant’s witnesses was recorded and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of DW-1 to 16.1.2006. On the adjourned date since none had appeared for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit in default. In case the suit is restored, the lis between the parties will be disposed of on merits. Moreover, the other side has been compensated with costs. The trial Court, while restoring the suit, has burdened the petitioner with ` 3,000/- as costs. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from the vice of illegality. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 03, 2011 anita