Allowed

(O&M)Samad Baba Garib Nath Saraswati Tirath v. Shanti Devi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2016CR/1114/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition to set aside orders dismissing an application to restore a suit dismissed in default. The Court found the lower courts applied a hyper-technical approach by rejecting the application due to lack of detailed 'unavoidable circumstances' despite it being filed within the statutory time limit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; suit restored to original number subject to costs of Rs.30,000/-. Parties directed to appear on 23.02.2016.

(O&M)Samad Baba Garib Nath Saraswati… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.1114 of 2002

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.1114 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:13.01.2016

¶5

Samad Baba Garib Nath Saraswati Tirath, Pehowa and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shanti Devi (deceased) through LRs and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

1. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

Present: - Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶15

¶16

PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,J.

¶17

Instant revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa and the order dated 13.10.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for restoration of the suit dismissed in default, has been dismissed.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration chellenging the orders of correction of khasra girdawri proceedings and also for permanent injunction. The said suit was at the stage of replication. On 03.02.1997 nobody put in appearance on behalf

¶19

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.02.18 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

Civil Revision No.1114 of 2002

¶22

of the petitioner and suit was dismissed in default. On 10.03.1997 petitioner moved an application for restoration of the suit. The said application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, vide order dated 28.07.2000. Against the order dated 28.07.2000, petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Hence, this revision petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

Admittedly, the application for restoration of the suit was filed within 35 days from the date of dismissal of the suit in default. But the Courts below dismissed the application on the ground that detailed reasons have not been mentioned in the application as to what were those unavoidable circumstances which resulted in non-appearance. It is common practice that if the application is filed within 30 days, no strict proof is required for non-appearance of the parties. It is common practice that pleadings in the Mufsal Courts are loosely drafted. Parties are not well-versed in drafting the pleadings. This Court is of the opinion that both the Couts below appear to have taken a hypertechnical approach. Since the petitioner-plaintiff as well as his counsel were not there, the case was fixed for replication. The petitioner would not gain anything for non-appearance. Parties rely upon the counsel. In case both do not appear atleast some notice is required to be given.

¶25

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.02.18 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

Civil Revision No.1114 of 2002

¶28

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, revision petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside and civil suit is ordered to be restored to its original number subject to costs of Rs.30,000/-, out of which Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the respondents. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, on 23.02.2016.

¶29

(Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal) Judge

¶30

January 13, 2016 R.S.

¶31

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.02.18 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

(O&M)Samad Baba Garib Nath Saraswati Tirath v. Shanti Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Samad Baba Garib Nath Saraswati Tirath v. Shanti Devi 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

Naresh Vs State of Haryana

Jaswant Singh @ Jassi Vs State of Punjab

Atul Bansal Vs State of Haryana

Nirmala Rani Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab