C.R.No.2893 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2893 of 2006. Decided on August 20, 2009. Santokh Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State Bank of Patiala and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2006, passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Patiala, dismissing the application of the petitioner for restoration of the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner which was dismissed in default on 06.03.2002, on the ground that there has been delay in filing of the application. A copy of order dated 06.03.2002, had been applied on 30.04.2002, and the same was supplied on that very day i.e., 30.04.2002. The application for restoration was filed on . . . 1 C.R.No.2893 of 2006 18.05.2002. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents, at length. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and a direction to promote him to the post of Cashier w.e.f., 01.08.1991, from the date from which others had been promoted. An application filed under order 11 Rules 12 & 14 CPC, for discovery and production of document was allowed on 05.11.1993. The respondent-bank had filed a revision No.159 of 1994, in the High Court in which notice of motion had been issued on 31.01.1994. A perusal of the interim orders which were passed from 22.04.1994 till 06.03.2002, indicates that on 60 dates of hearings, the trial Court had been adjourning the case for awaiting the orders from the High Court in the period from 1994 to 2002. The case was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, when none of the parties appeared before the Court. It has been brought to my notice that the civil revisions pending in this Court were subsequently dismissed on the ground that the suit had been dismissed in default. The petitioner seems to have been deprived of an opportunity to get adjudication of the matter for none of his fault. The rules are hand-maiden of justice and are meant to give fair opportunity to a litigant to get the adjudication of the matter after a fair trial. The petitioner has been deprived of the said opportunity for none of his faults. No doubt, there has been delay in adjudication of the matter but the doors of the Courts should not be closed to a litigant for none of his faults. . . . 2 C.R.No.2893 of 2006 The impugned order dated 20.03.2006, is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Patiala, on 03.10.2009, for further proceedings in accordance with law. It will be open to the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), to either take up the case for further proceedings or entrust the same to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. It will be appreciated in case the suit is decided expeditiously preferrably within one year after the next date of hearing. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 20, 2009. rka . . . 3