Dismissed¶33

Naveeen Rana and Another v. Dharambir and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025CR/2914/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Punjab & Haryana High Court; Harkesh Manuja, J.; CR No. 2914 of 2024 (O&M); restoration of civil suit; dismissal in default; dismissal for want of prosecution; repeated non-appearance; lack of vigilance; conduct not bona fide; suit kept alive to pressurize defendants; declaration and permanent injunction; ancestral property; release deed dated 15.07.2001; undue influence; coparceners; trial Court order 16.11.2022; District Judge Gurugram order 20.01.2024; petition dismissed; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners-plaintiffs were never vigilant and serious in pursuing their litigation: approximately ten of the thirteen years of the suit so far were consumed solely by restoration applications. ¶29

Naveeen Rana and Another Vs Dharambir and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil suit, thrice dismissed/restored and finally with the restoration application dismissed on 16.11.2022 and the appeal dismissed on 20.01.2024, ought to be restored despite the petitioners-plaintiffs' repeated non-appearance before the trial Court.

¶25

Court's answer

The petitioners-plaintiffs were never vigilant and serious in pursuing their litigation: approximately ten of the thirteen years of the suit so far were consumed solely by restoration applications.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The act and conduct of the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed bona fide; the only intent appears to have been to keep the litigation alive just to pressurize respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶32

Key takeaways

No convincing explanation was rendered by the petitioners-plaintiffs for their non-appearance before the trial Court on the dates fixed.ratio¶32
No case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below; the revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J.) dismisses Civil Revision No. 2914 of 2024 (O&M) decided on 09.09.2025, by which petitioners-plaintiffs Naveen Rana and another sought setting aside of the trial Court's order dated 16.11.2022 dismissing their restoration application and of the appellate order dated 20.01.2024 of the learned District Judge, Gurugram, so as to restore their suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (Dharambir and others), founded on allegations that a release deed dated 15.07.2001 over ancestral property was obtained by undue influence. History of chronic defaults recorded: plaint filed 21.07.2011; suit dismissed in default 11.10.2013; restored 24.03.2014; again dismissed 30.05.2015; the restoration application of 09.11.2016 itself dismissed in default on 21.05.2022; a fresh application of 01.09.2022 dismissed on 16.11.2022; appeal rejected 20.01.2024. Held: out of thirteen years of litigation approximately ten years passed only on restoration applications, showing the plaintiffs were never vigilant and serious; their conduct cannot be termed bona fide and appears aimed at keeping litigation alive merely to pressurize the defendants; no convincing explanation was offered for the repeated non-appearance. Finding no case for interference, the Court dismissed the petition and directed that pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. No statute or precedent is cited.

¶1

141

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2914 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

¶4

Naveen Rana and another

¶5

.......... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dharambir and others

¶8

.......... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present: Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioners-plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2.

¶11

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the orders dated 16.11.2022 & 20.01.2024 passed by the Courts below whereby an application seeking restoration of the civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed at the instance of petitioners-plaintiffs against respondent Nos. 1 & 2-defendants, came to be dismissed.

¶15

[2] Briefly stating, the petitioners herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being defendants. As per plaint, the subject property in the hands of the father of petitioners-plaintiffs was ancestral in nature, however, respondent No. 1 having exerted undue influence, managed to get a release deed dated 15.07.2001 in his favour from respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2. It was

¶16

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.10 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR No. 2914 of 2024 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

further pleaded that the petitioners-plaintiffs being coparceners were having pre-existing rights in the ancestral property, as such a declaration was prayed for setting aside the release deed dated 15.07.2001 being illegal, null and void and also without any legal necessity.

¶20

[2.1] The plaint was filed on 21.07.2011. The civil suit was dismissed in default for the first time on 11.10.2013. Thereafter, on an application preferred at the instance of petitioners-plaintiffs, the same was restored by the trial Court on 24.03.2014. The written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 28.11.2014. Again on 30.05.2015, the civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on account of non-appearance of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Again, restoration application was filed on 09.11.2016 and even the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution on account of non-appearance of the petitioners-plaintiffs before the trial Court on 21.05.2022. Thereafter, another restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs on 01.09.2022, was also dismissed by the trial Court on 16.11.2022.

¶21

[3] Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge, Gurugram vide order dated 20.01.2024. Hence, the present revision petition. [4] Impugning the aforesaid orders dated 16.11.2022 & 20.01.2024 passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that passing of the impugned orders has caused serious prejudice to the rights of petitioners. He also points out that the non-appearance of petitioners before the trial Court on the date(s) fixed was neither intentional nor willful, but occurred on account of bona fide reasons. He further points

¶22

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.10 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CR No. 2914 of 2024 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

out that at present, the suit is at the final stage of recording of evidence of defendants and thus prays for restoration of the suit while submitting that substantial rights of the parties are involved therein.

¶26

[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2-defendants submits that the petitioners have never been vigilant in pursuing their litigation, therefore, they are not entitled for restoration of their suit. He also points out that the orders passed by the Court below are detailed and comprehensive and thus, call for no interference.

¶27

[6] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book, I find no substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶28

[7] A perusal of the record shows that in the present case, the plaint was filed before the trial Court on 21.07.2011. For the first time, the suit was dismissed in default on 11.10.2013 and the same was restored on 24.03.2014. Again on 30.05.2015, the same was dismissed in default for the second time. Restoration application in terms thereof was filed on 09.11.2016, which was also dismissed in default on account of nonappearance of the petitioners-plaintiffs on 21.05.2022 and thereafter, fresh restoration application was filed on 01.09.2022, which also came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 16.11.2022. Even, an appeal preferred against the same was rejected on 20.01.2024 by the learned Appellate Court.

¶29

[7.1] The fact narrated hereinabove clearly reflect that the petitioners-plaintiffs were never vigilant and serious in pursuing their litigation as out of thirteen (13) years of litigation so far in the suit, approximately ten (10) years have passed only on the restoration

¶30

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.10 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CR No. 2914 of 2024 (O&M) -4-

¶32

application(s) preferred at the instance of petitioners-plaintiffs. In the considered opinion of this Court, the act and conduct of petitionersplaintiffs, in such circumstances, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed to be as bona fide . It appears that the only intent of the petitioners was to keep the litigation alive just to pressurize respondent Nos. 1 & 2- defendants. Be that as it may, even no convincing explanation has been rendered by the petitioners-plaintiff towards their non-appearance before the trial Court on the date(s) fixed.

¶33

[8] Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, present petition being devoid of merit, is thus hereby dismissed .

¶34

[9] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶35

Septem 'dk kamra’	ber 09, 2025	( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶36

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.10 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Naveeen Rana and Another v. Dharambir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveeen Rana and Another v. Dharambir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal Vs Ram Rakha Singh

Yashpal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Yashpal and Others

Mal Singh Vs Lac etc.

Mal Singh Vs the Land Acquisition Collector and Another

Anju Aggarwal and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others