In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6233 of 2008 Date of decision: March 26, 2009 Smt. Nirmal Sharma and others ... Petitioners vs. Smt. Sudesh Agnihotri and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J By way of the order dated 26.4.2008, the trial court refused to restore the Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2005, dismissed by it for default on 5.12.2006. The factual background of the case is that the petitioners had filed an appeal No.140 dated 13.10.2005 which was dismissed in default on 5.12.2006. The application for restoration was filed on 13.4.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has pleaded before the trial court that that the case was fixed for 16.3.2007 as per his diary and brief, therefore, when he along with the petitioners reached the court on 16.3.2007, the case was not found reflected in the cause list and later on he came to know that his appeal was dismissed in default on 5.12.2006. Since the petitioners/applicants had come to know about the dismissal of the appeal on 16.3.2007, therefore, the application for restoration of the appeal was within limitation having been filed on 13.4.2007. On the aforesaid pleadings, the application for restoration was filed which was dismissed on 26.4.2008. Heard. The applicants have specifically pleaded in their application that they came to know about the dismissal of the appeal on 16.3.2007, therefore, the application for restoration having been filed Civil Revision No. 6233 of 2008 -2- *** on 13.4.2007 is certainly within limitation. Even otherwise, they had already engaged the counsel who was to appear and argue the case after they had parted with the fee and brief to the counsel, nothing remained to be done on their part as such the appeal was dismissed in default for the fault on the part of their counsel for which the petitioners/applicants could not be blamed. The petitioners were not to be benefitted by getting the appeal dismissed in default. It would also be expedient in the interest of justice that meritorious claims should not be thrown away without giving opportunity of being heard. As such, I deem it expedient to interfere in the impugned order and restore the appeal. Consequently, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 26.4.2008 and restore the appeal at its original number subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. March 26, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge