C.R. No.3418 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3418 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.01.2010 M/s Atma Ram Sohan Lal .……Petitioner Versus Harjinder Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 11.04.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala thereby dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for restoration of the suit which had been dismissed in default on 23.07.2007 under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) vide order (Annexure P-1). The petitioner’s case is that on 17.05.2007, the case was adjourned to 23.07.2007, but a wrong date of hearing i.e 28.07.2007 was noted by the counsel and, therefore, none appeared for the parties on 23.07.2007 and when the counsel searched for the case on 28.07.2007, it was discovered that the suit had been dismissed in default on 23.07.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused C.R. No.3418 of 2009 -2- the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even none appeared for the defendant-respondent on 23.07.2007 and it was a genuine case of noting a wrong date of hearing. In this context, attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that even counsel for the petitioner in the lower Court appeared as witness and stated on oath that he had noted a wrong date of hearing as 28.07.2007 instead of 23.07.2007. The said advocate even produced his diary in support of his said statement. It was also pointed out that other evidence had already been led by the petitioner in the suit and arrest warrant of witness namely Jaswant Singh was ordered to be issued on 17.05.2007 for 23.07.2007 vide order (Annexure P-2). I find considerable force in the aforesaid contentions. The suit was dismissed on 23.07.2007, when none appeared either for the plaintiff or for the defendant. There is cogent evidence led by the petitioner in the form of statement of his own counsel that he had noted a wrong date of hearing. Even otherwise, in such matters, Courts adopt liberal approach. Application for restoration of the suit was also filed within three weeks i.e on 13.08.2007. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the suit is restored to its previous stage on payment of costs. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 11.04.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner is restored to its original number and previous C.R. No.3418 of 2009 -3- stage, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs precedent. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 08.02.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 08.01.2010. A. Kaundal