Allowed

Jagdish v. Kanshi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2012CR/6220/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside an impugned order that dismissed applications for restoration of an appeal and an application due to default. The Court held the lower court was hyper-technical in dismissing the petition, which was filed within the limitation period, and restored the appeal while directing the appellate court to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.7.2010 set aside; appeal restored at original number on payment of Rs.3,000/-; directed to be decided on merits.

Jagdish Vs Kanshi and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No. 6220 of 2010 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No. 6220 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.5.2012

¶4

... Jagdish ................Petitioner vs. Kanshi and others .................Respondents

¶5

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶6

Present: Sh. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Sh. Divya Sarup, Advocate for LRs of respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶8

K.C. Puri, J.

¶9

Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 26.7.2010 vide which the application dated 18.3.2009 for restoration of the appeal and application dated 15.10.2009 filed by the petitioner for restoration of the application which was dismissed in default on 15.10.2009, were dismissed.

¶10

Briefly stated, the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was pending before the Additional District Judge, Hisar. That appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.3.2009 as none appeared

¶11

CR No. 6220 of 2010 -2-

¶12

on behalf of the appellant. The appellant, now petitioner, filed an application for restoration of that appeal on 18.3.2009, which was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.10.2009. On 15.10.2009 itself, an application for restoration of that application was moved, which was also dismissed on 26.7.2010 vide impugned order.

¶13

I have heard counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the case file.

¶14

The law and procedures are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Learned Additional District Judge has gone hyper-technical. The appeal was dismissed in default on 16.3.2009 and application for restoration was moved on 18.3.2009 i.e. only one day after the dismissal of the appeal in default. That application for restoration was also dismissed in default on 15.10.2009. The application for restoration was moved on the same day. The Ist Appellate Court should not have gone into other controversy once the application for restoration of the appeal was filed within limitation. Learned Additional District Judge has become more hyper-technical when the application was moved on the same day and the same has also been dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is restricted and as such the same should not be exercised.

¶16

I have considered the said submission, but do not find any merit in that submission.

¶17

Where there is injustice, in that case, the Court has to step

¶18

CR No. 6220 of 2010 -3-

¶19

into the aid of the party. The Ist Appellate Court should not have dismissed the application for restoration of appeal, as well as, application for restoration of application.

¶20

So, the impugned order dated 26.7.2010 stands set aside and the appeal stands restored at its original number, on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits.

¶21

The parties are directed to appear before the Ist Appellate Court on 30.5.2012.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of.

¶23

chugh

Jagdish v. Kanshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. Kanshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar and Others Vs Yashpal Bhum and Others

Paramjit Kaur & Anr. Vs Surjit Singh & Ors.

New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna

Vijay Kumari and Anr. Vs Surjit Singh Walia and Ors.

Santosh and Ors. Vs Naresh Kumar Arora and Anr.

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.