IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 2829 of 2007.
Date of decision:- 04.03.2009.
Gurmail Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Surjit Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondents No.3 to 13.
JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral)
The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present revision petition praying
for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2007 whereby his application for restoration
of the suit against defendants No.3,4,6 to 13, which was dismissed on 22.04.2003
for non-filing of registered cover/process fee and correct addresses of the
defendants has been dismissed. The relevant order dated 22.04.2003 passed by the
learned lower Court is reproduced hereunder:-
” Despite the sufficient effective opportunities, the plaintiff
did not furnish PF/RC and CA for service of defs. no.3,4,6 to
13. No reasonable explanation is coming foirthwith. Hence,
the suit against the defs.no.3,4,6 to 13 stands dismissed under
Order 9 Rules 2 and 5 CPC.
The defs.no.1,2 and 5 are directed to file the
written statement and reply on 21.5.2003. “
It is apparent from the record that the suit for declaration and joint
possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed on
15.01.2003. After the suit was dismissed qua defendants No.3,4,6 to 13 under
C.R. No. 2829 of 2007 -2-
Order 9 Rules 2 and 5 CPC, the issues were framed on 26.04.2004 and thereafter
the plaintiffs led their evidence and the same was closed on 09.02.2006.
It is further apparent that the defendants, after examining their
witnesses, closed their evidence on 31.07.2006 and the case was listed for rebuttal
evidence. It is, at that stage that the petitioner-plaintiff moved this application for
recalling the order dated 22.04.2003 alongwith another application moved under
Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC for seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to
re-file the same.
Reply to the application for recalling the order was filed by the
respondent-defendants. After consideration of the same, the learned Trial Court,
vide its impugned order dated 27.04.2007 dismissed the same on the ground of
having been filed at a belated stage.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is amply clear from the record that the said application was filed
after a delay of more than 3-½ years. No steps at the initial stage had been taken
by the petitioner-plaintiff for serving the defendants despite granting sufficient
opportunities. It appears that the petitioner-plaintiff is trying to adopt the delaying
tactics to prolong the matter on one pretext or the other.
No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out.
Dismissed.
March 04, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE