Civil Revision No.784 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.784 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision 02.02.2011 Sadhu Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Harbans Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition assails the order dated 04.12.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, allowing the application of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (herein referred as 'the plaintiffs') for restoration of the suit, which is now at the stage of arguments. The suit filed by the plaintiffs Harbans Singh and Sital Singh was dismissed in default on 26.10.2004. Thereafter, they filed an application for restoration on 04.05.2010, pleading that their counsel pleaded no instructions on their behalf, therefore, the suit was dismissed in default. After the counsel pleaded no instructions, no notice was served upon the plaintiffs. Even Sh.R.K.Tiwari, Advocate, before making such statement, did not inform them. They came to know about the dismissal of the suit on 01.05.2005 through Darshan Singh, son in law of petitioner Sadhu Singh, who is also attorney of Sadhu Singh, who openly proclaimed in the village that the suit has been dismissed. The petitioner-defendant (herein referred as 'the defendant') Civil Revision No.784 of 2011(O&M) 2 filed reply to the application stating that the application is hopelessly time barred. From pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues and after holding that the plaintiffs were not at fault and the suit is liable to be restored, restored the same to its original number and listed the same for arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit against Harbans Singh-plaintiff No.1 has already been dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2001 and his application for restoration was also dismissed on 04.02.2004, therefore, he has no right to move the application for restoration afresh. There are also no sufficient grounds to restore the suit on behalf of plaintiff No.2-Sital Singh, which was dismissed in default. Arguments heard. Record perused. As regards the restoration of the suit qua Harbans Singh, it may be observed that the suit qua him was dismissed in default on 07.09.2001 and his application for restoration was dismissed on 04.05.2004. Even in his absence, there was no bar for Sital Singh-plaintiff No.2 to continue with the suit and there is no such allegations that suit of Sital Singh was also earlier dismissed. There is no clash of interest between Sital Singh and Harbans Singh, therefore, even the suit qua Sital Singh is restored then it will not make any difference. Law is well settled that the meritorious claims should not be thrown away in the dustbin by applying a shortcut method of dismissal in default. The instant case is now fixed for main arguments. The view taken by the trial Court for restoration of the suit appears to be quite reasonable. As regards the dismissal of earlier application for restoration of Civil Revision No.784 of 2011(O&M) 3 suit qua Harbans Singh, it does not extinguish his right in the property, therefore, in the light of fact that the Court is hearing plaintiff No.2 Sital Singh in the suit and if he succeeds to establish his rights as well as the rights of the plaintiff No.1 in the property, then certainly he would have his rights in the property and his status cannot be worse than that of the proforma defendant. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification that the Court will consider the suit filed by plaintiff No.2, which has been restored. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 02.02.2011 mamta-II