Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.10.2009 Ramesh Chand ......petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate. for the petitioner. Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 15.4.2004 passed by respondent No.2. Vide order dated 14.3.2006, the objection petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and in default by Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the said order. Vide impugned order dated 9.5.2009, the application for restoration of the objection petition was dismissed. Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the absence of the petitioner on 14.3.2006 was not intentional and deliberate. The counsel for the petitioner had failed to inform the petitioner about the date and hence, the petitioner could not appear in the Court on the said date. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another AIR 1981 SC 1400; N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy 1998(2) PLJ 543; State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 375 and the decision of this Court in Lal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another PLR Vol.CXXXII (2002-3) 584. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had not inquired about his case for 1 ½ year and the whole effort was to delay the proceedings of recovery against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. The objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 14.3.2006. However, the application for restoration of the same was filed on 23.8.2007. Although a liberal approach is required to be taken while dealing with application for restoration as has been held in the judgments relied upon by the Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M) 3 learned counsel for the petitioner yet each case has to be decided on its own facts. The petitioner is a contractor and hence, cannot be said to be a layman. The petitioner was required to keep a track of his case. The petitioner did not bother to inquire about the proceedings of the case for such a long period and filed the application for restoration after more than 1 ½ year of the dismissal of the objection petition in default. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the delay in filing the restoration application was deliberate and was with an intention to gain time regarding recovery proceedings pending against him. In the facts of the present case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 24 , 2009 anita