Civil Revision No. 1463 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1463 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 05, 2010 M/s Saini Rice and General Mills, Chamkaur Sahib ......Petitioner Versus M/s Verma Trading Co. ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dismissing the application of the petitioner for restoration of this appeal which was dismissed in default. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,33,473/- against the petitioner on the ground that it ran the business of sale and purchase of grains and other items in Anaj Mandi, Chamkaur Sahib and had sold paddy worth Rs.8,66,000/- odd to the petitioner in the month of October and November, 2000. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1 lac and agreed to pay the remaining amount with interest at the rate of 18%. Payment not having been made, the suit was instituted. The petitioner Civil Revision No. 1463 of 2010(O&M) 2 appeared and took the plea that it had purchased no paddy at all from the respondent in the month of October and November 2000. In support of its case the respondents produced on record copy of Form- M, copies of account register of the market committee, copies of sales tax returns and copy of ledger as well as entries in the cash books. In response the petitioner appeared and orally denied the transaction. In view of this overwhelming documentary evidence the suit was decreed as mentioned above as far back as 27.4.2006. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal which was, however, dismissed in default on 31.7.2007. After a period of almost 21 months the petitioner filed an application for restoration stating that her lawyer never gave the information that the appeal had been dismissed in default on 31.7.2007 and that she continued to believe that the appeal was pending. In reply to the application for restoration it was averred that the petitioner was setting up a false case and in fact knew about the dismissal order. Learned Lower Appellate Court framed issues but despite taking various opportunities including last and final opportunity, no evidence was produced by the petitioner. Even costs were not deposited. Ultimately the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. After the closure of the evidence the application was dismissed in the presence of counsel for the petitioner. In this petition the prayer made is that the proprietor of the petitioner was not well and thus could not appear to lead evidence. No explanation is forthcoming as to why on earlier dates evidence could not be led and why costs were not paid. I put it to learned counsel that in this whole process the decree which was passed almost five years ago has remained unexecuted and to compensate the respondents for the damage Civil Revision No. 1463 of 2010(O&M) 3 already caused to them by efflux of these 5 year, whether the petitioner would be ready to bear costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Learned counsel states that it is not possible for the petitioner to pay costs. It is prima facie clear that the suit of the respondents was decreed on the basis of the overwhelming documentary evidence. It seems that the petitioner is just seeking to delay the execution. Consequently it cannot be held that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity so as to make it liable for interference under article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 05 , 2010 sunita