C.R. No. 966 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 966 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.8.2009 Varinder Chaudhary .......... Petitioner Versus Baba Chanichar Gir Chela Guru Mittar Gir Chela Guru Narain Gir & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2007, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Ropar vide which application for setting aside ex parte order dated 16.1.2001, stands allowed. The plaintiff / respondent Baba Chanichar Gir Chela Guru Mittar Gir Chela Guru Narain Gir filed a suit for declaration, that the property of Shawala Bhoot Nath Sadhu Ashram is in possession of the plaintiff, as Chela of Furu Mittar Gir, and that the defendants have no right, C.R. No. 966 of 2008 2 title and interest in the suit property of Shawala, details of which were given in the head-note of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the plaintiff for amendment of the suit by claiming that the title of the suit was to be changed to “Shiwala Bhoothnath” in place of “Baba Chanichar Gir”. The application for amendment was dismissed on 14.9.2000 vide order Annexure P-4, attached with this revision petition. On account of non-appearance of the plaintiff / respondent the suit was dismissed on 16.1.2001. The respondent thereafter moved an application for setting aside ex parte order dated 16.1.2001. In the application the title of the suit was shown as “Shewala Bhooth Nath Vs. Sanatan Dharam Sabha etc.” The learned trial Court held, that the sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance of the plaintiff / respondent,and the suit was ordered to be restored by setting aside ex parte order. The order impugned has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner primarily on the ground, that in the heading of the application, the title of the suit was not correctly given, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that no sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Merely because wrong description of C.R. No. 966 of 2008 3 the title, was given in the application, can not be a ground to reject the application, especially when the application was moved by the plaintiff i.e. Baba Chanichar Gir Chela Guru Mittar Gir Chela Guru Narain Gir, and not on behalf of Shewala Bhooth Nath. The suit restored is original suit, as the application for amendment for changing the title of the suit already stood dismissed, and attained finality. The learned trial Court rightly rejected this contention. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted, as the learned Court blow on appreciation of evidence, recorded a positive finding, that good and sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance by the plaintiff. The learned Court held, that in fact the plaintiff / respondent had gone to attend the Kumbh Mela at Allahabad, after obtaining permission of the Court. No fault therefore could be found with him for non-appearance. It was thus contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit could not be restored after lapse of so many years. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The application for restoration was moved within the period of limitation i.e. within one month from the dismissal of the suit. If the learned Court kept the application pending for seven years, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the application for setting aside of ex parte order. Sufficient cause was shown for setting aside the ex parte order. No party can be allowed to suffer on account of the fault of the Court. C.R. No. 966 of 2008 4 This revision is disposed of by upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 7.12.2007. 6.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE