IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3179 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.05.2010 Hari Pal and others ...... Petitioners Versus Roshan Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Parampreet Singh Paul, Advocate, for the petitioners. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This defendants' revision is directed against the orders dated September 29th, 2009 (Annexure P/2) and May 7th, 2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ropar. By order dated September 29th, 2009, (Annexure P/2), appeal filed by the petitioner-defendants titled Hari Pal and others Vs. Roshan Singh was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners filed application (Annexure P/3) for restoration of the appeal, but the same was dismissed by order dated May 7th, 2010 (Annexure P/4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that respondent - Roshan Singh appeared as RW-1 before the Additional District Judge and deposed that he has no objection, if the appeal is decided on merits, subject to payment of costs. Statement of Roshan Singh is Annexure P/5. Inspite of that, the Additional District Judge, dismissed the application of the petitioners for restoration of the appeal only on the ground that they did not file certified copy of the order dated September 29th, 2009. 3. The approach of the Additional District Judge is erroneous. It is not expected from a Judge of the rank of Additional District Judge to dismiss the application for restoration only on the ground that certified copy was not filed by the petitiones particularly when the respondent had no objection in restoring the appeal. Otherwise too, the file in which the order dated September 29th, 2009 was passed, was, of course, in his Court and he could have summoned the same to decide the appeal on merits rather than dismissing the application. It appears that Additional District Judge wanted to avoid the appeal to be decided on merits even though, respondent had no objection thereto. 4. It pains this Court to note that some Judicial Officers shirk work and adopt the convenient course of dismissing matters in default. They choose to remain insensitive and oblivious of the hardships that the litigants suffer. The tendency is reprehensible and censurable. The golden rule that contest on merits is always better option is given a complete go-bye causing damage to the whole system and results in multiplicity of proceedings, avoidable expenses of litigation and also erodes the faith of the public in the Courts. How unfortunate it, indeed, is that the Additional District Judge in this case made short work of the matter by dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal despite the fact that the other party had no objection. 5. This petition is accepted. The impugned orders are set-aside. The appeal be restored by the Additional District Judge and it be decided on merits. The Additional District Judge has contributed towards the delay in disposal of the appeal. He is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (Nawab Singh) Judge 13.5.2010 som/SN