Dismissed

Vipin Kishore v. Veena Alias Meena and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Mar 2012CR/31/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of his application for restoration of a default-dismissed appeal. The court held that the petitioner's appearance in execution proceedings and failure to inquire about the appeal's status for nearly three years negated any claim of good faith or lack of notice.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vipin Kishore Vs Veena Alias Meena… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 31 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 31 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.3.2012

Vipin Kishore

.. Petitioner

Veena alias Meena and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. I.P.S Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.12.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the appeal against the eviction order, was dismissed.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner from the shop in dispute, which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 5.4.2006. Against the eviction order, the petitioner preferred appeal on 28.4.2006, which was dismissed in default on 26.4.2007. The application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 14.12.2009, which was dismissed vide impugned order.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the appeal was filed, the counsel engaged informed the petitioner that since it is a civil dispute, the petitioner is not required to be present on each and every date of hearing and as and when his presence will be required, he will be informed. Under that belief, the petitioner did not enquire about the case. The petitioner was never informed about the status of the appeal. It was only on 13.12.2009 when Ms. Jaspinder Kaur, counsel engaged by the

¶15

Civil Revision No. 31 of 2012 [2]

¶16

petitioner to file the appeal, met the petitioner in a social function and he was informed about the dismissal of appeal in default. Immediately thereafter, on 14.12.2009, the application for restoration was filed, which was within limitation from the date when the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of appeal in default. He further submitted that endorsing the aforesaid facts, even the counsel had filed her affidavit before the court in support of the application filed by the petitioner for restoration. The prayer is that the order passed by the learned court below dismissing the appeal in default be set aside and the appeal be heard on merits.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has been noticed by the court below in the impugned order that after the appeal was dismissed in default, the respondents filed execution application, in which notice was issued to the petitioner and he had put in appearance through his counsel Mr. Sheikhar Shukla. Meaning thereby that the petitioner had been attending the court, may be in execution proceedings, regularly after 11.10.2007. It is claimed that the petitioner was under the impression that the appeal is pending. Even though no stay of execution of the eviction order had been granted in the appeal, but still when the execution of the eviction order was sought, the petitioner neither enquired about the status of his appeal nor filed application for stay of operation of the eviction order. It has further been noticed by the court below that the counsel, who was pursuing the appeal, did not produce her diary in support of the claim made by her.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid material on record, it is established that the petitioner had been appearing in the court in execution of the eviction order passed against him, the appeal against which had already been dismissed in default, but did not care to enquire about the status thereof for more than two years and seven months. It cannot be said that non-appearance on the date the appeal was dismissed in default was bonafide or that the application for restoration, which was filed later on, was within limitation.

¶19

Civil Revision No. 31 of 2012 [3]

¶20

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶21

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶22

2.3.2012 mk

Vipin Kishore v. Veena Alias Meena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vipin Kishore v. Veena Alias Meena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Chhinder Singh and Ors.

Jagdev Singh and Ors. Vs Rajinder Kaur and Ors.

Sohan Singh Vs Ajaib Singh and Ors.

Ram Kumar and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Punjab Wakf Board Chd. Vs Sita Ram & Ors.

Bhagwan Singh Sandhu Vs Lal Singh and Ors.