CR No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on March 04,2010. Gurmeet Singh and another -- Petitioners vs. Pritam Singh and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Ravinder Malik,Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This revision petition is directed against order dated 11.8.2009 vide which an application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for setting aside order dated 19.11.1999, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default, has been dismissed. Petitioners filed a Civil Suit No.491 of 1989/1996 titled as “Gurmeet Singh and another Vs. Pritam Singh and others” for declaration, which was dismissed in default on 19.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application on 3.4.2000 for setting aside order dated 19.11.1999 and restoration of the suit for its adjudication on merit. In the application, CR No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) 2 it was alleged that the suit was fixed for consideration on Misc. Application on 13.11.1999, which was adjourned, but the plaintiffs/petitioners wrongly noted the date as 29.3.2000 which was in fact fixed in some other case by the Court and was mistaken about the date given in their case. Consequently, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners on 19.11.1999 and the suit was dismissed in default of appearance. It was claimed that non appearance of the petitioners was unintentional and for that purpose, restoration was prayed. While dismissing the aforesaid application, learned Court below recorded the following findings:- “ I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the applicants is that the case was fixed for hearing on 13.11.1999. They mistook the date as 29.3.2000. However, a perusal of the interim orders passed in civil suit No.491 of 1989/1996 show that the case was never fixed for hearing on 13.11.1999. In fact, the case was fixed for hearing for 12.10.1999. It was adjourned to 9.11.1999 for arguments. On 9.11.1999 the case was adjourned to 16.11.1999. The contention of the applicants that they appeared in court on 13.11.1999 and mistook the date as 29.3.2000 thus cannot be accepted. When the case was never fixed for hearing on 13.11.1999, the question of appearance of the applicants in court on that date does not stand to reason. On 16.11.1999, the case was adjourned to 19.11.1999 Neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel appeared CR No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) 3 in court on 19.11.1999. The suit was thus dismissed in default by the court on 19.11.1999. The entire story framed by the applicants seems to be an after-thought. Neither the applicants nor their counsel intentionally appeared in court on 19.11.1999 when the case was called for hearing. The court was thus left with no option but to dismiss the suit in default”. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to cause a dent in the findings recorded here-in-above and has rather tried to shift the entire burden on to the Advocate, who had appeared on behalf of the petitioners saying that it was his fault because of which the petitioners should not have been allowed to suffer. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clear hands as he has not mentioned that the aforesaid application for restoration itself was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.11.2005 in which following order was passed :- “Present: None. Case called several times before as well as after lunch but plaintiff/applicant either in person or through his counsel failed to appear. It is already 3.40.PM. No further wait is justified. Therefore, present application for restoration stands dismissed in default. File be consigned to record room” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been candid in his approach to the Court as CR No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) 4 he deliberately made wrong averments in the application to the effect that the case was fixed for 13.11.1999 and the adjourned date was mistaken as 29.3.2000 because the case was never fixed for 13.11.1999 as it was fixed for 12.10.1999 and was adjourned to 9.11.1999 and further adjourned to 16.11.1999. Thus, I do not find any fault in the impugned order whereby the Court has found that the petitioner never appeared in the Court on 13.11.1999 and mistook the date as 29.3.2000. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. March 04,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge