Single-judge High Court dismissed a Civil Revision petition challenging the dismissal of a suit below for three consecutive defaults, noting the petitioner's counsel also failed to appear.
The present revision petition is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3304 of 2016
Date of Decision: 09.05.2016
Harpreet Singh Makkar
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Gurmeet Singh and Others
... Respondent(s)
| CORAM: | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? |
Yes |
| 2 | To be referred to reporters or not? | |
| 3 | Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? |
Yes |
| Present: | Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). |
Shekher Dhawan, J.
Present petition is challenge to the order dated 29.2.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby application, filed by plaintiff/petitioner, for restoration of the suit was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner could not pursue his case as his mother passed away in the month of February, 2014 and he remained under depression during that period. The Court below has completely ignored this fact while passing the impugned order and as such the same be set aside.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.11 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Revision No. 3304 of 2016
2
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner; gone through order dated 29.2.2016 and record of the case, this Court is of the view that the Court below has taken a correct view while passing the impugned order because suit was dismissed in default for non appearance of the plaintiff on three consecutive dates. Petitioner might have some justified ground not to appear on 7.2.2014 because of death of his mother. But there was absolutely no reason for his non-appearance on 12.3.2014 and 5.5.2014. More so, petitioner was duly represented by counsel. If at all, there was any circumstance which was beyond the control of petitioner for his non-appearance, he must have intimated to his counsel. Even learned counsel for the petitioner failed to put in appearance and under those circumstances, the Court dismissed the suit on account of continuous default for non-appearance of the petitioner. The order passed by the Court below dated 29.2.2016 does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference by way of present petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine.
(Shekher Dhawan) Judge
May 09, 2016 “DK”
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.11 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision petition challenging the dismissal of a suit due to continuous default deserves to be set aside.
Harpreet Singh Makkar
Gurmeet Singh and Others
Shekher Dhawan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
