CR No.3135/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3135/2011 Date of decision: 11.05.2011. Balbir Singh ....................Petitioner v. Kartar Singh and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Premjit Kalia,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant no.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 4.3.2011 (P1) whereby the application filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC for restoration of his suit, earlier dismissed in default, has been allowed. It is stated that defendant/petitioner-Balbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was born out of loins of plaintiff Kartar Singh and Amrik Kaur. The petitioner had been gifted the suit land- agricultural land measuring 40 kanals- vide registered gift deed dated 30.9.1977, when he was a minor by Chanan Singh, who was brother of real grandfather of the petitioner and was issueless. Subsequently, relationship between plaintiff-Kartar Singh and Amrik CR No.3135/2011 2 Kaur (parents of the petitioner) had irretrievably broken down and they were divorced resulting into Amrik Kaur marrying one Joginder Singh. It is submitted that plaintiff/respondent no.1 (father of the petitioner) on 21.8.1996 filed a suit for declaration assailing the registered gift deed dated 30.9.1977. The issues were framed on 6.3.1998 and the defendants concluded their evidence on 3.2.2003. Thereafter the case remained pending for rebuttal evidence of the respondent no.1/plaintiff till 11.12.2003 when the same was dismissed in default. The application for restoration was filed on 26.5.2004. That application for restoration remained pending till 4.3.2011 when it was finally decided vide impugned order of even date on the ground that as the plaintiff had been regularly appearing since the institution of the suit his mere non-appearance on one date i.e. 11.12.2003 due to his having suffered an accident, would amount to sufficient ground for his non-appearance and accordingly restoration application was allowed and the suit restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, after unsuccessfully arguing at length, lastly submits that the learned trial court while exercising discretion in allowing the restoration application should have at least compensated the defendant/petitioner by way of costs. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant I find that the impugned order dated 4.3.2011 does not require any interference. However, the prayer for grant of costs by CR No.3135/2011 3 way of compensation is reasonable and hence the same is accepted. It is given out that the suit is now listed for arguments on 16.5.2011 and therefore, it is ordered that the hearing of the suit shall be permitted subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid by the plaintiff- Kartar Singh to petitioner/defendant-Balbir Singh by way of demand draft before the hearing of the case. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 11.05.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge