FAO No.1438 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1438 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: February 23, 2011 BAHADUR SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. KRISHAN SINGH, ADVCOATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. MR. VIVEK SINGAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. In a fire incident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.1.2011, several files were burnt. 2. The Registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the Court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. 3. The appeal is against the summary dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that no evidence had been offered. Counsel seeks for FAO No.1438 of 2010 -2- an opportunity to be given for conducting the case. 4. Counsel for the respondents point out that the appellant was not ready at all for hearings and on 11.6.2009, on the failure of the claimant to put in evidence, the Court had ordered `300/- as cost but, it was not paid till the next date of hearing. When it was called on 22.9.2009, the Court proceeded to summarily dismiss the petition. If the claimant causes deliberate delay and the Court passes an order directing cost to be paid and even that would not be paid, the Court was perhaps justified in dismissing it summarily. It is a case of injury and I do not want, however, the party to suffer even without obtaining an adjudication on merits. The appellant shall pay cost of `1000/- for, what the party had failed to do even before the Tribunal, to the District Legal Services Authority of Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order as a condition precedent for having the order passed already by the Tribunal to be set aside. The party shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.4.2011 and on production of receipt of payment of cost awarded, the Tribunal shall set the date of hearing convenient to both the parties and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. If the cost as awarded is not paid within the time specified, the order passed already by the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. February 23, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE