Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alim And Others vs Lalit Kumar And Another on 3 February, 2025
CR-671-2025 (O&M) Page 1 of 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
132 CR-671-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.02.2025
Alim and others
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Lalit Kumar and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The petitioners have filed the present revision petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order
dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned District Judge, Nuh
whereby the application CM-22-2020 for restoration of the CM-753-2018
has been dismissed on the ground of non deposit of Rs.30,000/- as costs to
be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that grave
prejudice and injustice will be caused to the petitioners in case the
impugned order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) is not set aside whereby
the application CM-22-2020 for restoration of the CM-753-2018 has been
dismissed on the ground of non deposit of Rs.30,000/- as costs by the
petitioners to be paid to the respondent No.1. It is accordingly prayed that
the impugned order be set aside subject to payment of reasonable costs.
3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioners.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the case file in great detail.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had filed a suit
seeking decree for declaration with consequential relief of joint possession
which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 14.02.2018 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners had challenged the said
judgment and decree before the learned District Judge Nuh vide Civil
Appeal bearing CIS No. CA-67-2018 titled as 'Alim vs. Lalit Kumar and
another'; which was dismissed in default on 07.12.2018. The petitioners
filed an application bearing No. CM-753-2018 seeking restoration of the
said appeal. However, even the application CM-753-2018 was dismissed in
default by the learned District Judge, Nuh vide order dated 06.12.2019.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present application i.e. CM-22-2020 on
15.01.2020 for restoration of their application CM-753-2018; which was
allowed in the interest of justice vide order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-
5) however, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid by the
petitioners to respondent No.1 on the next date of hearing. The learned
District Judge, Nuh in order dated 28.08.2024 had also made it clear that "if
applicants do not deposit the cost on the next date of hearing, their
application shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Now to come up on
20.09.2024 for deposit of cost."
6. Despite the above, the petitioners again failed to appear
before the learned Court below on the next date of hearing i.e. on
20.09.2024, whereupon the impugned order came to be passed, as
follows:-
"Case called several times since morning but none
has appeared on behalf of applicants-appellants. It is already
02.15 p.m.
On the last date of hearing, this application for
restoration of another application filed by the applicants for
restoration of main appeal was allowed, subject to costs of
Rs.30,000/- and it was made clear that if the applicants do not
deposit the costs on the next date of hearing their application
shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Today none has appeared on behalf of applicants,
despite repeated calls. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
File of previous application, main appeal and Trial Court record
be sent back to the record room. This file be consigned to
record room after due compliance."
7. Now the present revision petition has been filed seeking
restoration of the CM-753-2018 for restoration of the Civil Appeal.
8. However, this Court is not convinced to grant the prayer made
by the petitioners. A bare reading of the above facts shows that the
petitioners have exhibited an utterly casual and derelict attitude in their
pursuit of the present litigation. No ground, let alone any cogent ground has
been cited before this Court as to why the impugned order dated
20.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) should be set aside. It is to be appreciated that
very valuable public time of all the Courts has been expended in affording
opportunities to the petitioners in the interest of justice. On the other
hand, the petitioners have adopted an utterly casual and careless approach
deigning to put in appearance as per their own whims and fancies.
9. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned
order. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
03.02.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
