Civil Revision No.4209 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Misc.No.17694-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.4209 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : August 03, 2009 Hardeep Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Harpreet Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Prachi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N.JINDAL, J.- CM Nos.17304-CII and 17694-CII of 2009 are allowed and the documents Annexure P-1 to 12 are taken on record. CR No.4209 of 2009 : This petition is directed against the order dated 15.6.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana restoring the suit titled “Harpreet Singh and others vs. Hardip Singh and others”, which had been dismissed in default on 8.4.2009. Heard. The main grievance of the petitioners – defendants (herein referred as `the defendants) is that after the suit had been dismissed on 8.4.2009, an application was filed for restoration of the same on 11.4.2009, Civil Revision No.4209 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] but the Trial Court without taking any action on the said application, proceeded to restore the suit on fresh application moved by the respondents – plaintiffs (herein referred as `the plaintiffs) on 18.4.2009. As a matter of fact, the record reveals that an application had been filed on 11.4.2009, but despite the thorough search, the said application could not be traced as it is apparent from the report of the `Ahlmad' made on 18.4.2009 that the application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be traced. As such, a fresh application was filed on 22.4.2009. The plaintiff could not be blamed for the loss of application. In any case, in the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, the pendency of the earlier application was not a bar for filing a subsequent application. So far as the change of circumstances is concerned, in the instant case, the earlier application had been lost and was not traceable, and thus, the second application was certainly filed in changed circumstances. Moreover, the second application filed before the Trial Court was well within time, therefore, in order to impart complete justice to the parties and to escape injustice to the plaintiffs, on account of dismissal of their suit for non- presence, the order of restoration passed by the Trial Court was quite justifiable and it needs no interference. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. August 03, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE