Shashi Gupta v. Gian Chand Gupta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR-3852-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.07.2024 Shashi Gupta

...Petitioner

Versus

Gian Chand Gupta

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:

Mr. Parvinder Moar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** VIKAS SURI, J.(Oral) 1.

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner for setting aside order dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Chandigarh, whereby the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent for restoration of the suit has been allowed. 2.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole ground urged in this petition is that the instant suit was dismissed in default on 26.07.2022 and the same has been restored vide order dated 10.05.2024. It is alleged that the plaintiff-respondent got the present recovery suit dismissed in default as a part of the larger design as on account of the delay having been caused in its decision, if it succeeds the liability to pay interest would be fastened upon the petitioner. 3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, perused the record.

SUMIT KUMAR 2025.09.26 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-3852-2024 -24.

Undisputedly, the suit was dismissed in default on 26.07.2022. It is also noticed in the impugned order that after the death of the previous counsel of plaintiff-respondent, the subsequent counsel had filed fresh power of attorney on 23.04.2021. The application for recalling the order dated 26.07.2022 was filed promptly thereafter. The trial Court also noticed that substantial rights of the parties are involved in the civil suit and a fair opportunity of hearing ought to be provided to the parties for decision of lis on merits and that no party should suffer on account of procedural laws, allowed the said application subject to payment of costs.

5.

As regard to sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the suit is decreed, the liability to pay interest for the intervening period would also be fastened upon him, is pre-mature. The said plea is to be first raised before the Court where the suit is pending and as such, this Court refrains from observing anything in that regard.

6.

No other point has been raised or urged.

7.

Accordingly, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, the present revision petition is dismissed.

(VIKAS SURI) July 12, 2024 JUDGE sumit.k Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether Reportable :

Yes / No SUMIT KUMAR 2025.09.26 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment