SAO No. 14 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- SAO No. 14 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.05.2008 Dhan Dehi .......Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV Present: Mr. J S Thind, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondents-UOI -.- NIRMAL YADAV, J. (Oral) C M No. 10018 CII of 2008 C.M. is allowed and affidavit of Smt. Dhan Dehi, is taken on record subject of all just exception. Main case The appellant has challenged the order dated 09.03.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar, vide which, her appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, was dismissed in default for non- appearance. Its restoration application was also dismissed on 20.03.2006 by learned District Judge, Amritsar. The main ground taken in the restoration application was that appellant's absence in the Court on 09.03.2005 was not intentional. She SAO No. 14 of 2007 (O&M) 2 could not appear in Court on account of marriage of her daughter, namely, Balwinder Kaur. Her counsel also remained busy in another Court. Therefore, she prayed for restoration of the appeal. Learned District Judge, Amritsar, while dismissing the said application, has observed that the appellant had made a false statement before the Court that she could not appear in Court on account of marriage of her daughter, namely, Balwinder Kaur, whereas she is not her daughter. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to inadvertence, the appellant had made a statement before learned District Judge, Amritsar that marriage of her daughter, namely, Balwinder Kaur was fixed on 09.03.2005, whereas actually, she was her grand-daughter. The appellant has submitted an affidavit in Court stating therein that she has only one daughter namely, Surjit Kaur, who is married to Mukhtiar Singh and Balwinder Kaur is Surjit Kaur's daughter i.e. Appellant's grand daughter and her marriage was fixed on 09.03.2005. In view of the facts delineated above, it appears that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the appellant and she would not have gained anything by intentionally not appearing in Court. The District Judge, has also observed in the impugned order that the application was within limitation and only reason for dismissing the application is of making a false statement. To my mind, statement suffered by the appellant could not be intentional, it may be due to inadvertence. Accordingly, the order dated 20.03.2006 as well as the order dated 09.03.2005 passed by District Judge, Amritsar, are set aside and the appeal is ordered to be SAO No. 14 of 2007 (O&M) 3 restored to its original number. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Amritsar for decision on merits, after giving due opportunity to the parties. Disposed of. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Amritsar on 03.07.2008, for further orders. [NIRMAL YADAV] JUDGE May 21, 2008 mohan