C.R.No. 7478 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 16,2009. Rambir -- Petitioner vs. Lehri Singh and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.9.2009 (Annexure P6) of the learned Addl. District Judge, Rewari, whereby an application for restoration of Misc. Civil Appeal No.05/6.11.2002/09.5.2005 titled Umrao Singh through LRs Vs. Lehri Singh, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Umrao Sngh (since deceased), father of the petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, in respect of land measuring 64 kanals 9 marlas situated in revenue estate of village Ransi Majri, Tehsil Bawal, District, Rewari . Along with the suit, an application filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC), was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide his order C.R.No. 7478 of 2009 (O&M) 2 dated 18.10.2002. Against the order dated 18.10.2002, Umrao Singh (since deceased) filed Misc.Appeal on 6.11.2002 before the learned Addl.District Judge, Rewari, in which interim order of stay was granted restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land more than his share and of specific khasra number till further orders. However, order of stay was violated by the respondents which led to the filing of an appeal at the instance of the petitioner against respondent No.1 which is allegedly pending. In the meantime, Umrao Singh died on 25.11.2005 and his legal representatives were brought on record. On 22.8.2006, Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate, appearing on behalf of legal representatives of deceased Umrao Singh suffered the following statement in the Misc.Appeal before Court below which reads as under: “ It is stated that as per the instructions of the client, I do not want to pursue the present appeal and wanted to withdraw the same” On the basis of the aforesaid statement, learned Addl.District Judge, Rewari passed the following order on the same day which reads as under:- “ Learned counsel for the appellant, vide his separately recorded statement has stated that as per the instructions of his client, he does not want to pursue the present appeal and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Heard. In view of this statement, the present appeal is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. The lower Court record be sent to the concerned Court. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the said Court on 1.9.2006. Ahlmad is directed to send the same immediately . C.R.No. 7478 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Appeal file be consigned to the record room”. Aggrieved against the order dated 22.8.2006, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.6597 of 2006 before this Court in which following order was passed on 11.12.2006. “The learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw this revision petition to approach the learned Addl.District Judge,Rewari for making the appropriate application. Dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted”. It is alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2006, an application was filed by the petitioner on 1.2.2007 before the Court of learned Addl.District Judge, Rewari, for restoration of the appeal after recalling the order dated 22.8.2006, but the said application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.9.2009 against which the present revision has been filed. The only argument raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statement made by Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate on 22.8.2006 was without any instructions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. It is admitted that the application has been moved by Rambir alone, whereas two other legal representatives of Umrao Singh (deceased) namely, Misri Devi and Virender raised no objection. Moreover, admittedly, no action has been taken against the Advocate before the appropriate forum much-less the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, for his alleged misconduct of withdrawing the appeal without instructions. It is also not believable that the petitioner would have taken four months in C.R.No. 7478 of 2009 (O&M) 4 filing the revision before the High Court on 8.12.2006 against the order dated 22.8.2006, though he alleged to be present on the date of hearing, sitting outside the Court. If he was aggrieved with the misconduct of his Advocate, he would have at least brought this matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer immediately or to the notice of the Bar Association of which he (Advocate) is the member, but no such action was taken. Therefore, it is apparent that the proceedings carried out by the petitioner of revision in this Court, after four months of the passing of the order dated 22.8.2006, was an after thought and may be motivated. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order and as such, the present Civil Revision is hereby dismissed in limine, thought without any order as to costs. December 16,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge