Balwinder Singh vs The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8792 P&H

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                     CHANDIGARH

                                                            CR-5049-2019 (O&M)
                                                            Reserved on: 30.05.2023
                                                            Date of pronouncement: 01.06.2023

                        Balwinder Singh
                                                                                            ...Petitioner

                                                Versus

                        The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman

                                                                                           ...Respondent

                        CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

                        Present:          Mr. C.K. Jha, Advocate for the appellant.

                                          Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                            *****
                        H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Being impugned in this revision petition are three orders,

first being dated 19.11.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana,

vide which the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed in default, the

second dated 18.07.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana,

vide which an application of petitioner for restoration of civil suit had

been dismissed and third dated 24.04.2019 passed by Addl. District

Judge Ludhiana, vide which the appeal of the petitioner against those

orders had been dismissed.

SUMIT KUMAR 2023.06.02 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment SUMIT KUMAR 2023.06.02 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment SUMIT KUMAR 2023.06.02 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

9. Although, the plaintiff had filed an application for

condonation of delay in filing of application for restoration but the

applicant had sought condonation of delay of 88 days only when the

SUMIT KUMAR 2023.06.02 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment delay was for more than 10 months. Under Article 122 of the Limitation

Act, limitation for filing an application for restoration of a suit is 30 days

from the date of dismissal. The application was hopelessly time barred

with no cogent and convincing reason being there, it was rightly

dismissed by the trial Court and the order was upheld by the Ist Appellate

Court. If the plaintiff does not appear in the Court when the case is called,

the Court is justified in dismissing it for non-prosecution. In the revision

petition, a lengthy story has been given with regard to dismissal of stay

application by the trial Court, then plaintiff challenging that order before

District Judge, Ludhiana filing an application for amendment of plaint

etc., that does not have any relevance to the present controversy.

10. I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned

orders. No interference therewith is called for by exercising revisional

jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the revision petition is misconceived and is

not maintainable. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

                        01.06.2023                                          (H.S. MADAAN)
                        sumit.k                                                 JUDGE

                                      Whether speaking/reasoned :     Yes          No
                                      Whether Reportable :            Yes          No




SUMIT KUMAR
2023.06.02 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment