IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3694 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.8.2009 Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner. Versus Hari Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 and 12. None for the other respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 22.9.2006 whereby the application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default on 29.4.2000, was rejected by the trial court. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he along with proforma defendants was owner in possession of the suit property. The suit was fixed on 29.4.2000 for evidence of the defendant-respondents, but as the plaintiff had failed to appear on that day, the suit was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on 23.5.2000 which was also rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order. It is CR No. 3694 of 2007 -2- that order dated 22.9.2006 which has been impugned herein. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that on 29.4.2000, the plaintiff was suffering from fever and, therefore, he could not appear in the trial court on the said date along with his counsel. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order dated 22.9.2006, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice, the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order impugned herein is set aside. The suit is ordered to be restored to its original number and stage where it was at the time of its dismissal in default subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondents. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner fails to pay the costs as stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Since the suit relates to the year 1994, the trial court shall make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the same after serving notices to the parties. August 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE