CR No.8126 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8126 of 2010. Decided on: March 25, 2011. Gian Chand .. Petitioner VERSUS Collector, District Kapurthala and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, AAG., Punjab. M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioner-plaintiff, along with one Sadhu Ram, had filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession in equal shares and for injunction restraining the defendants- respondents from taking forcible possession or to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner-plaintiffs. The said suit was . . . 1 CR No.8126 of 2010 dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Phagwara, vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2000, holding that the petitioner-plaintiffs are not owners in possession of the property in dispute as in view of the eviction order passed under the Public Premises Act, by the Collector on 23.10.1996, the petitioner-plaintiffs have got no right to seek declaration and injunction. The petitioner-plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed in default on 04.05.2001. An application for restoration of the appeal was also filed, after a delay of 108 days which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 05.10.2010. The plea of the petitioner that he was suffering from ailment was disbelieved. The lower appellate Court had observed that the appeal was dismissed in default on 04.05.2001 whereas the application has been filed for restoration on 21.08.2001. This present revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by the lower appellate Court dismissing the application for restoration. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the present case. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had been negligent in contesting the appeal. Moreover, on merits, the petitioner-plaintiffs have already been dispossessed and that the plaintiff No.2, who had filed the application along with present petitioner, has already died. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the . . . 2 CR No.8126 of 2010 opinion that without expression of any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, it will be expedient, in the interest of justice, in case the petitioner is able to get a right for getting the matter adjudicated on merits by the lower appellate Court. He has been negligent in pursuing his case. Though, he ha not been held to be owner or in possession of the property but in case he wants to establish his rights, the ends of justice would be adequately met, subject to payment of costs, in case he is permitted to contest the case. The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the appeal will be heard on merits by the lower appellate Court subject to petitioner depositing costs of ` 10,000/- with the Collector, District Kapurthala, within a period of one month. The appeal will be restored at its original number subject to deposit of costs. The petitioner and the respondents are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court (successor Court) of the lower appellate Court on 21.05.2011, for adjudication of the appeal on merits. It is made clear that in case the costs, as directed above, is not deposited, this petition will become infructuous and the appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed. Revision stands disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 25, 2011. rka . . . 3