LPA No. 1334 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1334 of 1991 Date of Decision: 21.04.2008 Smt. Kamlesh Saini ......Appellant through Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ***** Vijender Jain, Chief Justice (Oral) CM No. 620 of 2007 This is an application for condoning the delay of 680 days in filing of the application for restoration of the appeal. Inspite of service, no body has put in appearance on behalf of the non-applicant-respondents. Counsel for the applicant-appellant says that the present appeal was listed alongwith the other connected appeals filed against the same impugned judgment of learned Single Judge and all the appeals were dismissed in default on 5.7.2005. In the other connected appeals,wherein the LPA No. 1334 of 1991 [2] appellants were being represented by their counsel, the applications for restoration were moved and those were restored, heard on merits and ultimately were allowed on 8.5.2006. He further says that the main judgment was passed in L.P.A. No. 751 of 1992 Sushma Palta and others V. State of Punjab and others, copy whereof has been filed by him alongwith the present application. He further says that the applicant- appellant came to know about the disposal of the connected appeals when she visited Amritsar to see her relations on 4.6.2007 and thereafter she visited Chandigarh to make enquiry about her case but found that her counsel had died and because of non-representation, her appeal was dismissed in default on 5.7.2005. Whereafter the applicant-appellant engaged the present counsel and thus, the delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal is neither intentional nor malafide but it was beyond the control of the applicant-appellant. Notice of this application was given to the non-applicant- respondents and they were served. No one is present on behalf of the non- applicant-respondents. In view of the fact that no body has appeared to oppose the prayer of the applicant-appellant for condoning the delay in filing the application and also considering the fact that other connected appeals were restored and finally decided on 8.5.2006, we condone the delay of 680 days in filing the application for restoration. CM No. 619 of 2007 This is an application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed in default on 5.7.2005. LPA No. 1334 of 1991 [3] Since the delay of 680 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal has been condoned, the application for restoration of the appeal is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number and taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CM No. 621 of 2007 & LPA No. 1334 of 1991 Since the issue raised in this appeal has already been settled in favour of the appellants by this Court on 8.5.2006 in LPA No. 751 of 1992 bearing caption Sushma Palta and others V. State of Punjab and others, this appeal is also disposed of in the same terms. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE 21.04.2008 'ravinder'