FAO No. 4369 of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 4369 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.11.2009
Kundan Lal
..Appellant
v.
Beant Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 22.4.2004,
passed by the learned court below, whereby the application for re-admission of
appeal as well as the application filed by the appellant for permitting him to file
the appeal as an indigent person, which were dismissed in default, was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for
recovery of Rs. 1,04,400/- against the appellant, which included Rs. 90,000/- as
principal amount and Rs. 14,400/- as interest from 7.6.2000 till the filing of the
suit. The same was decreed by the trial court on 12.4.2002. The appellant filed
appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court along with application
seeking permission to file the appeal as an indigent person. When the same was
listed for evidence, after framing the issues, on account of non-appearance of
counsel for the appellant, the same was dismissed in default on 21.2.2003.
Application for re-admission of the appeal was filed on 24.3.2003 with the plea
that on the date the counsel could not appear for the reason that a wrong date as
27.2.2003 was noted as against 21.2.2003 and after he attended the court on that
date, he came to know that appeal and the application had already been dismissed
in default. The application was dismissed by the learned court below.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the date on which
the appeal as well as the application for permission to file appeal as an indigent
person were dismissed, non-appearance of the counsel was on account of the
FAO No. 4369 of 2004 [2]
bonafide error of noting a wrong date. The application having been filed within
limitation, the same should have been allowed. The dismissal thereof by the
learned court below is not in the interest of justice.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, the
appeal lacks merit. A perusal of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court,
which was appealed before the learned court below, shows that the claim made by
the respondent-plaintiff was on the basis of pronote and receipt. The appellant did
not deny his signatures thereon. The only plea raised was that the same were
forged and fictitious, but no evidence was led to substantiate the same. The suit
was decreed on 12.4.2002. Thereafter, the appeal was filed. On account of non-
appearance of counsel for the appellant, the same was dismissed in default on
21.2.2003. Application for re-admission of the appeal was dismissed on 22.4.2004.
Present appeal was filed in this Court on 17.8.2004. The counsel is not even aware
of the fact as to whether after dismissal of appeal as well as application, the
recovery of decretal amount has been effected from him or not. Though in the
court below, the appeal was sought to be filed as an indigent person, however,
after dismissal thereof, present appeal was filed before this court, which is pending
here for the last more than five years. It is in the kind of a luxury litigation.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
30.11.2009
mk