CR No. 3885 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3885 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 31-08 2010 Meena Aggarwal ....Petitioner VERSUS Deepti Prasad Goel and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent no.1. MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against orders dated 13.8.2008 and 11.6.2009. The facts of the case are somewhat peculiar. A suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 pertaining to an agreement to sell executed in the year 1993. The suit was prosecuted upto year 2004 when due to absence of the petitioner it was dismissed in default on 12.4.2004 upon which the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the case in 2006 which was dismissed on 13.8.2008 vide the impugned order upon which an appeal was preferred which was declined on 11.6.2009 which is also impugned herein. Subsequent thereto the instant revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there has been a mis-carriage of justice as the learned counsel for the petitioner did not CR No. 3885 of 2009(O&M) 2 inform her about the dismissal of the suit in default. He further states that if the case is decided on merits he is willing to compensate the other side with costs. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand states that for more than two years, application for restoration was not filed. Even otherwise, facts reveal that agreement is of the year 1993 which was sought to be invoked in the year 1999. Consequently, there is hardly any justification for granting the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has committed a serious lapse in prosecuting her case. For more than two years, she did not file application for restoration even though limitation for doing so is 30 days. Even if indulgence is to be given to her that period of 30 days begins from the date of knowledge yet she has not conveniently explained as to how delay has occurred. It is the duty of the litigant to be vigilant in prosecuting his/her case and for that purpose it is expected that a litigant would be in close contact with his/her counsel engaged for the purpose and entire fault cannot be wished away by saying that it was the fault of the counsel alone. Having regard to the aforesaid, there is no legal infirmity committed by the Courts below in passing of the impugned order. However, purely in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside so as to enable the petitioner to contest her case on merits, but subject to payment of Rs.1 lac as costs which shall be deposited within a period of one month from today. Out of this amount of Rs.1 lac, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the respondent and remaining Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited in CR No. 3885 of 2009(O&M) 3 the Treasury for wasting the valuable time of the Court. Hence the present petition is allowed and the suit stand restored. August 31, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge