C.R. No. 4117 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4117 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.12.2011 Harvinder Singh Bajaj ....Petitioner. Versus Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. H.S. Sirohi, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 22.1.2011 whereby the application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default on 27.3.2006 was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the present petition are that the petitioner was working as Medical Officer under the respondent and was retired prematurely by respondent No.1. He filed a civil suit against the order of respondent No.1. The said suit was dismissed in default by the trial court vide order dated 27.3.2006. Thereafter, an application dated 15.6.2007 for restoration of the suit was filed. The said application was contested by the defendants-respondents by filing reply. The trial court vide order dated 22.1.2011 dismissed the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that C.R. No. 4117 of 2011 -2- there was no intentional or wilful default of non-appearance on 27.3.2006 and in the interest of justice, the trial court should have restored the suit and adjudicated the lis on merits. According to the learned counsel, great hardship has been caused to the plaintiff- petitioner by throwing him without adjudication of the suit on merits. 4. After carefully examining the case, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The trial court while dismissing the application for restoration of the suit had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether there exists sufficient cause of non- appearance of plaintiff on 27.3.2006 requiring the restoration of the suit? OPA 2. Relief.” 5. While adjudicating issue No.1, it was specifically noticed that numerous opportunities had been afforded to the plaintiff-petitioner to summon defendants but he did not even file the copies of the plaint. Moreover, in spite of last opportunities given to the plaintiff on 5.10.2005 and 7.12.2005, the plaintiff did not file the copies. Further, on 27.3.2006 even the plaintiff or his counsel did not come present and the case was dismissed in default. Furthermore, the application for restoration of the suit was filed on 15.6.2007, i.e. after more than one year and three months without any explanation much less satisfactory for the same. In such circumstances, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit was rightly dismissed in default and there was no ground for restoration of the same. The relevant findings recorded by the trial court read thus:- “9. The original file of the present suit was also C.R. No. 4117 of 2011 -3- summoned which is lying attached with the present case file. The court is competent to take judicial notice of the same. The perusal of the said file reveals that the plaintiff had availed numerous opportunities to summon defendant no.1 and 2 but he could not summon them for want of copies of the plaint. The last opportunities were also given to the plaintiff on 5.10.2005 and even on 7.12.2005. The plaintiff did not file the copies and on the date fixed i.e. on 27.3.2006 even the plaintiff or his counsel did not come present which is specially mentioned in the order dated 27.3.2006 that the counsel for the plaintiff suffered a statement that he will file the copy of plaint but despite last opportunity the said copies have not been filed and as such the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default due to non- appearance of the plaintiff and for want of prosecution. 10. Therefore, from the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite evident that the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed in default. It was imperative on the part of the plaintiff to file the application within the period of 30 days which the plaintiff has failed to do so. The plaintiff was aware of the fact that his suit was dismissed in default. Despite the fact that the plaintiff was aware that the suit was dismissed in default on C.R. No. 4117 of 2011 -4- 27.3.2006, no effort was made by the applicant/ plaintiff to file the application. Rather, the application has been filed after the period of more than one year. The said application is also not supported with any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, in these circumstances, the present application is hopelessly barred by limitation. As such, the present application deserves to be dismissed.” 6. Finding no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by by the trial court, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. December 13, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE