Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zora Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005984
CWP-12484-2022 -1- 2024:PHHC:005984
109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-12484-2022
Decided on 16.01.2024
Zora Singh and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Amandeep Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for respondents No.8 & 9.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned
letter/order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 vide
which the restoration application of the petitioner has been dismissed merely
on the ground of delay against the principles of natural justice; further to direct
respondent No.2 to restore the case of the petitioners to its original position and
decide the same on merits in the interest of justice.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners filed an application in the year 2014 under Section 11 of the
Land Revenue Act against the warrant of possession issued by respondent
No.3. He submits that notices were issued by respondent No.2 and the same
were pending adjudication before him. He submits that the application was
dismissed in default on 22.09.2021 due to non-appearance of the petitioners or
their counsel. It is submitted that Hon'ble the Chief Justice issued directions
regarding the computation of period of limitation in filing the cases due to the
situation arisen on account of Covid-9. He submits that the application under
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005984
CWP-12484-2022 -2- 2024:PHHC:005984
Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the petitioners for restoration of the main
application, which was dismissed in default. It is submitted that the application
filed for restoration was dismissed by respondent No.2 by passing the
impugned order dated 27.04.2022. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that due to outbreak of Covid-19, it was a period of restrictive
working and hence, the petitioners or their counsel failed to appear in the case.
It is submitted that on account of the same, the application filed was dismissed
in default. He submits that without taking into consideration the settled
principles of law, respondent No.2 dismissed the application filed for
restoration, which is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Lachi Tewari and others
vs. Director of Land Records and others, 1984 AIR (Supreme Court) 41. He
further submits that the application filed by the petitioners be restored by
setting aside the impugned order and respondent No.2 be directed to decide the
case on merits.
However, learned counsel for respondents No.8 & 9 has opposed
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the
impugned order has been passed in accordance with the law and suffers from
no illegality.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the
petitioners filed an application which was pending adjudication before
respondent No.2. It is evident that the case was not decided on merits and the
same was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the petitioners or their
counsel. There is no gainsaying that during Covid-19 period all the Courts
throughout the country were working in restrictive mode. Thus, the application
dismissed in default should have been restored and the same should have been
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005984
CWP-12484-2022 -3- 2024:PHHC:005984
decided on merits. However, respondent No.2 failed to appreciate the same. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders dated 22.09.2021
and 27.04.2022 are totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and hence, the same
are set aside. The petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to restore the
main application filed by the petitioners to its original number and decide the
same on merits as per law after hearing both the sides.
Copy of this order be conveyed to respondent No.2. On receiving
the same, respondent No.2 would issue notice to the parties and decide the case
expeditiously preferably within three months, from the date of receipt of copy
of this order
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
JUDGE
16.01.2024
sharmila
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005984
3 of 3
