C. R. No. 5002 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5002 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 14, 2010 Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation .... Petitioner Vs. Jaspal Mann and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Parveen Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Suit filed by the petitioner against respondents for recovery of Rs.1,20,896/- was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), vide order dated 08.05.2007 (Annexure P-2) because the petitioner-plaintiff did not furnish registered cover and copy of the plaint for issuance of summons to the defendants. The petitioner moved application for restoration of the suit, but the said restoration application has also been dismissed by trial court vide order dated 06.11.2007 (Annexure P- C. R. No. 5002 of 2008 2 3). Plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing aforesaid orders Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 passed by the trial court and for restoration of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file, but no one is appearing for the respondents today nor anybody appeared for the respondents on the preceding three dates of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made efforts for service of defendants, but in spite of efforts, the petitioner could not serve the defendants in the suit. But now, presence of defendants can be secured as they have also appeared in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner and they also appeared in the instant revision petition through counsel. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the suit filed by the petitioner (which is a Corporation of Union Territory, Chandigarh) should be restored on payment of cost. Courts are liberal in restoring cases dismissed in default. In the instant case, the petitioner did not file registered A.D. cover and copy of plaint and therefore, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, but it is contended that the petitioner could not do so as whereabouts of the defendants were not known at that time. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 passed by the trial court are set C. R. No. 5002 of 2008 3 aside and the suit is restored to its original number, subject to deposit of Rs.2500/- as cost, with the District Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. May 14, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE