Civil Revision No.6939 of 2009(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6939 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:-02.08.2011 Harbans Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Savitari Devi & Others. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 7. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2009(P-2)(wrongly mentioned as 22.11.2009 in the petition) passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot whereby his application dated 03.06.2008 for restoration of appeal has been dismissed. Facts giving rise to the filing of present petition are that plaintiff Hakam Singh(since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs), filed an application for passing of final decree for partition by meets and bounds of ½ share of house situated within the Municipal limits of Municipal Council, Jaitu, Faridkot against the petitioner. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot passed final decree dated 11.02.2006 in favour Civil Revision No.6939 of 2009(O&M) #2# of the respondent/plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Faridkot, however, the said appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 05.05.2008 for non appearance of the petitioner as well as his counsel. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-1) seeking restoration of his appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 22.10.2009 on the ground of limitation as there was a delay of 01 day in filing the said application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that on 05.05.2008 i.e. date of dismissal of appeal in default, petitioner was busy in panchayat elections which were due to be held on 12.05.2008. He further submits that petitioner had informed his counsel about the aforesaid fact. He further states that on 05.05.2008 counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other Court and as such he could not appear before the learned Appellate Court. He further states that absence of petitioner and his Counsel before the Appellate Court was not intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons which are bonafide. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 7 contends that application for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioner was time barred, therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed by the Court. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that present petition may be allowed and his appeal be restored by imposing any reasonable amount as costs. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and keeping Civil Revision No.6939 of 2009(O&M) #3# in view the fact that there is a delay of only one day, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition and condone the delay in filing the restoration application before the Appellate Court as technicalities should not come in wayof justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the appeal of the petitioner is restored subject to payment of costs of ` 3,000/- each, to be paid to respondent nos.1 to 7 who all are Lrs of plaintiff Hakam Singh (since deceased) and another sum of ` 4,000/- as costs to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. The costs to the private respondent nos.1 to 7 shall be paid by way of demand drafts and payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Court on 15.09.2011. The Appellate Court, in view of the fact that the case is at the final stage of arguments, shall decide the pending appeal within a period of next 30 days. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE August 02, 2011 Vinay