Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.5.2009 Girraj and others ..... Petitioners vs Sube Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A. K. Bishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Notice of motion was issued in the present petition for 21.11.2008. Service of respondents was completed on 16.3.2009. However, as no one had appeared on that date, it was adjourned to 5.5.2009. Still no one appeared on 5.5.2009 for the respondents and it was again adjourned for today. Even today no one has appeared for the respondents. In these circumstances, the case was taken up and disposed of. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default on 1.11.2006, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction at Palwal which was transferred to Nuh after setting up of new courts and on account of non-appearance of the petitioners' counsel, the same was dismissed in default on 1.11.2006. The application filed by them for restoration thereof on 21.2.2007 was dismissed being time barred. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the suit was filed at Palwal. The petitioners did not have any knowledge about its transfer to Nuh. They came to know only on 19.4.2006 that the case has been transferred to Nuh. They were told by the counsel representing them at Palwal that he will represent them at Nuh as well and intimate about the Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2008 (2) proceedings. The same having not been done, the suit was dismissed in default on 1.11.2006. On 19.2.2007, counsel engaged by them stated that he was not having any knowledge about the status of the suit, thereafter the petitioners engaged another counsel and came to know that the suit was dismissed in default on 1.11.2006. Immediately, the application was filed on 21.2.2007 for restoration for the suit which was dismissed merely by writing that the same was beyond limitation. The learned court below did not appreciate the fact that the petitioners came to know about the orders having been passed only few days prior to the filing of the application. Under these circumstances, the application should have been allowed as the petitioners cannot be stated to be at fault in prosecuting their case diligently. No one has appeared for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I find merit in the submissions made by him. On account of transfer of suit from Palwal to Nuh there seems to be lapse in non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioners. It is not a case where the petitioners were sleeping over the matter. The suit was dismissed in default on 1.11.2006. It is stated that they had contacted the counsel in the first week of February 2007 and came to know that earlier counsel had no information about the suit. Immediately they engaged a new counsel who informed that the suit was dismissed in default on 1.11.2006. The application was filed immediately which was also rejected. Still further considering the fact that the parties to the suit are illiterate villagers, who are not aware of the intricacies of procedure and are dependent on their counsels, if in this process some lapse had been there, the same should not be fatal for them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners on an assurance of the counsel representing them at Palwal with the belief that he will represent them in the transferee court at Nuh, could not pursue their case properly. As the respondents are not represented before this court despite service, it shows that even they have no serious objection. The endeavour of the court should be that the lis between the parties is decided on merits instead of technicalities. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order is set aside and the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is restored to its original number to be decided on merits. Ordered accordingly. Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2008 (3) The petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the court below on 13.6.2009. As the respondents remained unrepresented, they be summoned by the learned court below. The petition is disposed of. 21.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge