IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2829 of 2007. Date of decision:- 04.03.2009. Gurmail Singh ...Petitioner Versus Surjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 13. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present revision petition praying for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2007 whereby his application for restoration of the suit against defendants No.3,4,6 to 13, which was dismissed on 22.04.2003 for non-filing of registered cover/process fee and correct addresses of the defendants has been dismissed. The relevant order dated 22.04.2003 passed by the learned lower Court is reproduced hereunder:- “ Despite the sufficient effective opportunities, the plaintiff did not furnish PF/RC and CA for service of defs. no.3,4,6 to 13. No reasonable explanation is coming foirthwith. Hence, the suit against the defs.no.3,4,6 to 13 stands dismissed under Order 9 Rules 2 and 5 CPC. The defs.no.1,2 and 5 are directed to file the written statement and reply on 21.5.2003. “ It is apparent from the record that the suit for declaration and joint possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed on 15.01.2003. After the suit was dismissed qua defendants No.3,4,6 to 13 under C.R. No. 2829 of 2007 -2- Order 9 Rules 2 and 5 CPC, the issues were framed on 26.04.2004 and thereafter the plaintiffs led their evidence and the same was closed on 09.02.2006. It is further apparent that the defendants, after examining their witnesses, closed their evidence on 31.07.2006 and the case was listed for rebuttal evidence. It is, at that stage that the petitioner-plaintiff moved this application for recalling the order dated 22.04.2003 alongwith another application moved under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC for seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to re-file the same. Reply to the application for recalling the order was filed by the respondent-defendants. After consideration of the same, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 27.04.2007 dismissed the same on the ground of having been filed at a belated stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is amply clear from the record that the said application was filed after a delay of more than 3-½ years. No steps at the initial stage had been taken by the petitioner-plaintiff for serving the defendants despite granting sufficient opportunities. It appears that the petitioner-plaintiff is trying to adopt the delaying tactics to prolong the matter on one pretext or the other. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. March 04, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE