Civil Revision No. 685 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 685 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.01.2009 Ram Phal and others ...Petiitioners Versus Smt. Bhagan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. AK.Bura, Advocate for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. An appeal filed by the defendants-petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2004 was dismissed in default by the learned Ist Appellate court, vide order dated 27.4.2005. Thereafter, the defendants-petitioners applied for restoration of that appeal. The plea filed by them was declined by the learned Ist Appellate Court by observing that the petitioners had taken false and frivolous grounds for restoration of the appeal and had not been able to explain the delay of 7-1/2 months in filing of the plea for restoration. The plea raised by the appellants, that they refrained from filing the plea as efforts for compromise were underway with the intervention of their brotherhood, did not find favour with the learned Ist Appellate Court. In support of the averment that the restoration of the appeal Civil Revision No. 685 of 2008 -2- **** ought to have been allowed by imposing adequate amount of costs upon defendants-petitioners, reliance is placed upon Nabha Gaushala committee (Regd.) Nabha Vs. Narinder Singh and others 2005(3) PLR 571. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon Nabha Gaushala committee's case (supra) is misconceived. In Nabha Gaushala committee's case (supra), the appeal had to be filed by an institution i.e. Nabha Gaushala committee. The previous Manger had retired and had not brought the fact of decretal of the suit to the notice of his successor. The fact of decretal of the suit came to the notice of the new Manager only when a notice from the Executing Court was received in the relevant behalf. It is a pure and simple case in which the petitioners before the Court were duly represented by a counsel. If there was want of representation on their behalf, they cannot be heard to plead that they were busy in the pursuit of a compromise endearvour. The view obtained by the learned Trial Court is appropriate and legally acceptable. It does not call for interference. The petitioners had not been able to prove any sufficiency of ground for the restoration of the appeal. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. January 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge