C.R.No.4627 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4627 of 2009 Date of Decision : 18.08.2009 Babu Lal Modi ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. A.K.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 23.7.2009, whereby the learned trial Court restored the suit, which was dismissed in default on 24.9.2003. The sole ground to challenge the aforesaid order is that the application for restoration has been filed after more than 4 years i.e. on 26.9.2007 and, therefore, the trial Court has erred in law in restoring the suit. It is contended that the delay has not been explained satisfactorily. The learned trial Court has exercised its judicial discretion to restore the suit. It was the case of the plaintiff that the original plaintiff was ill and was admitted in hospital. He could not contact his lawyer. After a long gap, the legal heirs of the plaintiff came to know about the proceedings and, thereafter, filed the present application. C.R.No.4627 of 2009 2 The challenge in the suit is to the sale deeds dated 5.6.2001 and 18.6.2001. The delay in filing of application has not prejudiced the defendant-petitioner as they continue possession in the suit land in pursuance of the sale deeds. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 18.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE