C.R. No. 5822 of 2011 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5822 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 22nd,2011 Partap .. Petitioner Versus Sushil .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by Partap – defendant under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sonepat, whereby the suit filed by respondent – Sushil has been ordered to be restored by accepting the appeal. Sushil, plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. In the said suit, the plaintiff led his evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed for 1.10.2005 for the evidence of the defendant. It was the last opportunity to the defendant-petitioner for leading his evidence. In the meanwhile, on 1.10.2005, the case was transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat. Inadvertently, counsel for the plaintiff noticed 15.12.2005 as the next date of hearing in the case. On 15.12.2005, the plaintiff came to know that his suit was dismissed in C.R. No. 5822 of 2011 (O&M) 2 .. default on 8.11.2005 for his non-appearance as well as non- appearance of his counsel. The plaintiff filed an application for restoration of suit on the ground that his absence on 8.11.2005 was not intentional. He had mentioned the above circumstances and prayed for restoration of suit to its original number. On notice, the defendant resisted the application. He has denied that the counsel for the plaintiff had noticed the date fixed in the case as 15.12.2005. It is claimed that the plaintiff was not interested in proceeding with the case and he intentionally did not appear before the court. It is added that the plaintiff wants to harass and humiliate the defendant without any reason. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 15.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the same and the said appeal has been allowed vide judgment dated 11.8.2011, whereby the order of lower court was set-aside and the suit was ordered to be restored to its original number. Dissatisfied with the said order, the defendant has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The submissions made before me by learned counsel for the petitioner are just a reflection of the averments made in the reply to the application for restoration of the suit. First of all, it may be C.R. No. 5822 of 2011 (O&M) 3 .. noticed that the plaintiff was before the trial court with a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, on the plaint of which, he had paid court fee of the value of Rs.8,170/-. It was not a luxury litigation brought by him. He was serious in seeking relief. The case was fixed for 1.10.2005 for evidence of the defendant and last opportunity had been granted to the defendant for his evidence. So, the case was near ripe for decision and the plaintiff was not to take any steps for making the case ripe. There is no denial to the fact that on 1.10.2005, the case was transferred from the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana camp at Sonepat to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat. In the back-ground of these facts, the submission of the plaintiff – Sushil that his counsel took the next date as 15.12.2005, while the case was adjourned to 8.11.2005, and was dismissed on that day, cannot be taken to be outrightly wrong. Learned First Appellate Court took into account all these circumstances and has rightly found the plaintiff to have reasonable ground for not appearing on 8.11.2005. The judgment dated 11.8.201, accepting the appeal and reversing the order of the trial court and ordering restoration of the suit, does not appear to suffer from any patent illegality. Hence, the revision petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 22nd, 2011 som