Ramesh Chand vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 October, 2009

Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M)                              1



      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                        Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M)
                        Date of decision:     24.10.2009


Ramesh Chand
                                                       ......petitioner

                        Versus


State of Haryana and another
                                                    .......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:   Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate.
           for the petitioner.

           Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.

                 ****


SABINA, J.

The petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award

dated 15.4.2004 passed by respondent No.2. Vide order dated

14.3.2006, the objection petition was dismissed for want of

prosecution and in default by Additional District Judge, Faridabad.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved an application for

setting aside the said order. Vide impugned order dated 9.5.2009,

the application for restoration of the objection petition was dismissed.
Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M) 2

Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

absence of the petitioner on 14.3.2006 was not intentional and

deliberate. The counsel for the petitioner had failed to inform the

petitioner about the date and hence, the petitioner could not appear

in the Court on the said date. In support of his argument, learned

counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the

Apex Court in Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another AIR

1981 SC 1400; N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy 1998(2) PLJ

543; State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others 2005 (2) RCR

(Civil) 375 and the decision of this Court in Lal Singh and others

v. State of Haryana and another PLR Vol.CXXXII (2002-3) 584.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted

that the petitioner had not inquired about his case for 1 ½ year and

the whole effort was to delay the proceedings of recovery against the

petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court.

The objection petition filed by the petitioner was

dismissed in default on 14.3.2006. However, the application for

restoration of the same was filed on 23.8.2007. Although a liberal

approach is required to be taken while dealing with application for

restoration as has been held in the judgments relied upon by the
Civil Revision No.4334 of 2009 (O&M) 3

learned counsel for the petitioner yet each case has to be decided on

its own facts. The petitioner is a contractor and hence, cannot be

said to be a layman. The petitioner was required to keep a track of

his case. The petitioner did not bother to inquire about the

proceedings of the case for such a long period and filed the

application for restoration after more than 1 ½ year of the dismissal

of the objection petition in default.

In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the

delay in filing the restoration application was deliberate and was with

an intention to gain time regarding recovery proceedings pending

against him. In the facts of the present case, the judgments relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the

case of the petitioner.

Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any

material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this

Court.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

                                                (SABINA)
                                                 JUDGE

October     24 , 2009
anita