Civil Revision No. 4586 of 2009 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 4586 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.8.2009
Kranti Arora
......petitioner
Versus
Sachdeva and sons Rice Mills Ltd.
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.H.S.Lalli, Advocate.
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
1.8.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),
Amritsar .
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.14,89,119.10 paise against petitioner Kranti Arora. The said suit
was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(‘CPC’ for short) vide order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure P-1).
Civil Revision No. 4586 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application for restoration of the
suit. Vide the impugned order dated 1.8.2009 (Annexure P-5), the
application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
plaintiff had failed to establish that his absence for such a long period
was bona fide. The plaintiff had failed to lead his evidence despite
sufficient opportunities and on 3.11.2004 none appeared on behalf of
the plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff also pleaded no
instructions on behalf of the plaintiff. The plea taken by the plaintiff
that he could not appear before the Court as he had suffered with a
serious accident was not duly proved on record.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of
the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court.
The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on 3.11.2004 under
Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. On that date, the counsel for the plaintiff made
a statement that he had no instructions to appear on behalf of the
plaintiff. In the application for restoration, plaintiff pleaded that he
had met with a serious accident on 1.11.2004, while he was going
from Gaziabad to Delhi and then to Amritsar. His car was badly
damaged. Learned trial Court believed the explanation furnished by
the plaintiff and allowed the application for restoration subject to
payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. The suit was restored to its original
number. Since the application for restoration has been allowed,
Civil Revision No. 4586 of 2009 (O&M) 3
now the dispute between the parties would be disposed of on merits.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is
directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
August 17, 2009
anita