Civil Revision No.2915 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2915 of 2004 Date of Decision:29.07.2009 Gurdarshan Singh .....Petitioner versus Balwant Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 06.09.2003 passed by the trial Court whereby an application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default on 04.11.1999 was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the suit which was dismissed in default on 04.11.1999, an application for restoration of the same was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 06.12.1999. The Court, however, did not find any sufficient ground to restore the suit and rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for restoration. The plaintiff-petitioner has sought restoration of the suit on the averments that on 04.11.1999, he was suffering from serious illness and after getting recovery from the said illness, an application for restoration was filed. The reason for non-appearance was also on account of the Civil Revision No.2915 of 2004 2 aforesaid illness. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as well as record of the case. The application for restoration of the suit was filed on 06.12.1999 wherein it was stated that due to illness of the plaintiff- petitioner, he could not appear on 04.11.1999 when the suit was dismissed in default. The procedure, prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, is to render justice and in the instant case, it cannot be said that the plaintiff- petitioner was negligent or remiss in filing the application for restoration of the suit. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.09.2003 declining to restore the suit is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the suit is ordered to be restored to its original number. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 03.09.2009 which shall proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. As the suit is of the year 1996, the trial Court shall make sincere effort to decide the same within one year. July 29, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE