CR No. 2674 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2674 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2009 Balhar Singh .. Petitioner v. Kulbir Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.S. Chandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 7.3.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default, was accepted. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4, which was dismissed in default on 27.8.2007. Application for restoration was filed on 20.9.2007, in which on the statement of defendants No. 2 and 3, the suit was restored. Defendant No. 1 was ex parte. The petitioner, who was defendant No. 4, was served with a notice later on, as initially due to typographical error, his name was not mentioned in the application and notice could not be issued. However, subsequently by way of amendment, his name was added in the memo of parties and notice was issued to him also. The suit having been restored, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application filed immediately after dismissal of the suit, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 was not impleaded as one of the defendants. He was later on impleaded by way of amendment. In view of that fact, the application for restoration is to be deemed to have been filed on the date when the amendment in the application was allowed. He further submitted that on the date when the petitioner was summoned, without affording effective opportunity to him to contest the application, the same was allowed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any CR No. 2674 of 2009 [2] merit in the submissions made. It is not disputed that interest of defendants No. 2 and 3 and petitioner-defendant No. 4 was common. Two of the aforesaid defendants did not raise any objection to the restoration of the suit. The petitioner sought to contest the same with the plea that initially in the application filed for restoration, his name was not mentioned, though subsequently by way of amendment, his name was added and notice in the application was issued to him also. As it was simply an application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default, respondent No. 1-plaintiff had taken immediate steps to get the same restored. If due to inadvertence, name of one of the defendants, namely, the petitioner was not mentioned in the application, that would not be fatal for him to claim restoration of the suit qua him as well, when subsequently amendment application was filed for impleading him also as one of the defendants. The endeavour of the court is to decide the lis between the parties on merits instead of non-suiting the parties on technicalities. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.5.2009 mk