IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6013 of 2006 Date of decision:24.02.2009 Gurbachan Singh ...Petitioner versus Narinder Singh alias Mohinder Singh ...Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision petitioner was the defendant-respondent in the application before the trial Court. The suit had been originally dismissed on 03.06.2000 for default of appearance of the plaintiff and an application to restore the suit appears to have been filed on 17.07.2000 and that was also dismissed on the ground that process had not been filed inspite of several opportunities granted. An application was filed for restoration of that application on 10.09.2001. The Court had directed restoration of that application. 2. The revision petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of restoration on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to restore an application filed to restore a suit which itself Civil Revision No.6013 of 2006 - 2 - was dismissed for default. There are several decisions of various Courts which have allowed the same principles of restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 to be applied also to applications which were dismissed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to Full Bench ruling of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1978 Patna 339 -Bajrang Rai and others v. Ismail Mian and others, which has dealt with the issue from the point of view of the fact that the Court has inherent powers under Section 151 for restoring the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 which itself is dismissed for non- prosecution or for any other reason. The trial Court has decided to extend its discretion to restore the application which was dismissed and this is not a case fit for interference in revision. Discretionary exercise powers by the Court below one way or the other by setting cogent reasons for the same leaves no scope for interference in revision. 4. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.02.2009 sanjeev