C.R.No.6931 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6931 of 2008 Date of decision : 16.12.2008 Devender Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr. Saurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral) The petitioner has impugned the orders dated 28.4.2008 and 2.5.2008 by which the suit filed by him was dismissed in default and his application for restoration of the same had been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has paid the entire amount which was due towards him to the respondents and that he has also been acquitted of the charge of theft of electricity. Further contends that if one opportunity is granted to him and the suit is restored, he shall produce his entire evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 2.5.2008 which has been passed considering the circumstances. The learned trial court observed that the issues in the case were framed on 11.10.2006 and the case was adjourned repeatedly to 15.1.2007, C.R.No.6931 of 2008 -2- 21.3.2007 and 8.5.2007 for the evidence of the petitioner but he failed to produce any evidence. Last opportunity was granted to him to produce the evidence and the matter was adjourned to 17.8.2007. On this date a request was made by the counsel for the petitioner that he had been unable to contact his client and in the interest of justice the matter was adjourned to 11.1.2008. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 4.3.2008. On this date also no evidence was led and the matter was adjourned to 28.4.2008. On this date neither the counsel for the petitioner appeared nor the petitioner himself and as a result thereof the suit was dismissed in default. The application for restoration was dismissed by noticing the aforesaid facts and also noticing the fact that the petitioner had pleaded illness as the reason for non-appearance but no medical certificate was produced before the court. The counsel for the petitioner pleaded that he was busy in some other case, but no such details were furnished from which it could be inferred that he was actually unable to appear because of his pre-occupation. There is thus no reason to interfere, but yet purely in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to restore the suit to its original number and thereafter grant one opportunity to the petitioner by giving an effective date for production of evidence. Before parting with the order, it is to be noticed that the conduct of the petitioner is reprehensible which has resulted in undue wastage of time of the Court. Therefore, the revision petition is C.R.No.6931 of 2008 -3- accepted subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs. 16.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss