Balwinder Singh v. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Through Its Chairman

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.

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

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