C.R. No. 617 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 617 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.3.2010 Haryana Wakf Board (formerly known as Punjab Wakf Board), Ambala Cantt. .......... Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kanwar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No. 3,5 & 6. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.9.2005, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which application moved by the petitioner for restoration of the suit and hearing it on merit, stands dismissed. The appeal filed against the order was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal on 13.10.2006. It is not in dispute, that appeal was not competent, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal is prima facie without jurisdiction and can not be said C.R. No. 617 of 2007 2 to determine any rights of the parties. This Court, therefore, is to consider the revision petition to be against the order dated 29.9.2005, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner stands dismissed. The petitioner Punjab Wakf Board filed, an application for restoration of the suit which was adjourned sine die on 15.12.1972 by the learned Sub Judge, Karnal on the joint request of the parties. For a period of 25 years neither any party nor the Court took any steps to dispose of the suit on merit. It is lying in the Court having been adjourned sine die i.e. without fixing any date. The petitioner on earlier occasion, instead of moving an application for restoration of the suit, which was adjourned sine die, filed another suit, in which the notice was issued to the defendant / respondents, they filed written statement by raising objection about the maintainability of the second suit due to the pendency of the previous suit. The issues were framed, thereafter the parties were allowed to lead evidence. When the suit was at evidence stage, the petitioner got the said suit dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the pendency of the previous suit and also in view of the objection taken by the defendants, in their written statement about the maintainability of the second suit. The learned trial Court also took note of the fact, that there was earlier suit filed by the plaintiff / petitioner in the year 1968. C.R. No. 617 of 2007 3 That suit was got dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action, thereafter another suit was filed, which was adjourned sine die. The learned trial Court, keeping in view the facts stated above, recorded a finding that by filing the subsequent suit, which was got dismissed as withdrawn, amounts to abandonment of claim, therefore, the application for restoration was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that once the suit was pending, the Court was under statutory obligation to dispose of the suit by passing appropriate order i.e. by dismissing or allowing the suit by giving reason. However, the suit cannot be kept pending, by adjourning it sine die, on the request of the parties. The order is, however, supported by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the plea, that the application moved by the petitioner after 25 years was time barred, as the application was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, wherein the limitation prescribed is three years and therefore on expiry of three years no application for restoration was competent. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner did not claim any right in the application against which plea of limitation could be raised. This was an application for hearing of the case by bringing to the notice of the Court to perform its duty to hear suit, which stood C.R. No. 617 of 2007 4 adjourned sine die, and dispose it of by passing appropriate order. The learned Court had no right to keep the suit pending for 25 years, without taking decision therein. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted, that the suit cannot be heard and disposed of on merit, in accordance with law, in view of bar of limitation. Revision petition is allowed, and the learned trial Court is directed to take up the case for disposal, on merit, in accordance with law. The learned trial Court can pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, while disposing of the case on merit. 25.3.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE