C.R. No. 3254 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 3254 of 2009 Date of decision: May 29,2009 Gulzar Singh and another ..Petitioners Versus K.G.Walia and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate for the Petitioners. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants revision petition challenging the order dated 14.5.2009 whereby Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ambala has restored the suit which was dismissed in default on 9.6.2003 under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. Om Parkash Walia predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction which was later converted into a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The issues in this suit were framed on 19.11.1997. The suit was at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and was dismissed vide order dated 9.6.2003 for non-appearance of the plaintiff/his counsel. Respondents filed an application dated 11.11.2003 for restoration of the suit submitting that during the pendency of suit Shri Om Parkash Walia had died and even some of his legal heirs who were brought on record died. The suit was being pursued by Shri K.G. Walia being attorney who could not attend the Court on 9.6.2003 due to illness and they came to know of the dismissal of the suit in routine on 28.10.2003 and thereafter certified copy of the order dated 9.6.2003 was applied, which was supplied on 5.11.2003 and thereafter the restoration application was filed. The aforesaid application was allowed vide C.R. No. 3254 of 2009 2 impugned order dated 14.5.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the act and conduct of the respondents itself depict that they had been intentionally delaying the matter by all means including that the suit was got dismissed in default when they found it difficult to get any further adjournment to bring evidence in support of their case. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondents failed to examine even a single witness for more than five years and despite several opportunities to produce evidence at their own responsibility as well as two opportunities having been granted. Thus, the respondents who intentionally choose not to appear on 9.6.2003, the trial Court was right in law in dismissing the suit in default on 9.6.2003 and there were no good reasons for the trial Court to restore the same vide impugned order dated 14.5.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It is well settled that principles of procedural law are handmaid for the administration of justice and not to thwart justice. It is also well settled that unless the court finds that litigant has acted totally in a negligent manner or his action lacks bonafide, the court shall make an endeavour to decide the lis on merits. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of this Court in Vijay Bansal Versus Manjit Singh 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 811. In the present case, the suit was dismissed in default for non- appearance of the plaintiffs and their counsel under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC and not under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that delaying tactics were being adopted by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. The trial Court after satisfying itself that there were sufficient reasons for non-appearance of the respondents on 9.6.2003 has restored the suit. C.R. No. 3254 of 2009 3 There is no error of jurisdiction. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. May 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE