High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Gurmail Singh son of Jagir Singh - CR-4854-2003  RD-P&H 12625 (15 December 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C.R.No.4854 of 2003
Date of Decision : December 15, 2006.
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chandigarh and another ..... Petitioners Vs.
Gurmail Singh son of Jagir Singh
L.Rs impleaded vide order dated 5.9.2006 as :
1. Charanjit Kaur wd/o Gurmail Singh
2. Harmanjit Singh s/o Gurmail Singh ..... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia
* * *
Present : Ms.Maninder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
P.S.Patwalia, J. (Oral) :
The present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 23.5.2003 vide which an application for restoration of an earlier application filed for restoration of the suit which had also been dismissed in default, was rejected by the trial court.
The petitioner-Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited had filed a suit which was dismissed in default on 30.09.2002. An application for restoration of the said suit was filed on 1.10.2002. However the said application was also dismissed in default on 21.12.2002. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the earlier application.
This application was filed on 24.01.2003. The application has been dismissed by the trial court as being prima facie barred by time and also that there was no merit in the same as particulars of the defendants and their legal representatives have not been given.
C.R.No.4854 of 2003 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that about ten days' time was spent by the petitioner in obtaining certified copies of order dated 21.12.2002 and if that time is excluded then the said application would be within time. Still further she contends that the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the case on merits rather than its dismissal due to technical reasons. She submits that the petitioner had been moving the applications in time which shows that the petitioner-Corporation was vigilant to pursue the matter. Notice had been issued to the respondent and his legal heirs. It has been reported by the office that the legal heirs have refused to accept the notice.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that the second application filed for restoration of the first application was wrongly dismissed by the trial court. Firstly if the period of obtaining certified copies is excluded then the said application would be within time. Secondly I am of the opinion that some latitude should be given to the Corporation in this regard especially in view of the fact that it was vigilant and was moving the applications from time to time.
Accordingly the order dated 23.5.2003 is set aside. The application filed for restoration of the first application is allowed. The first application is restored on the file of the trial court. The trial court would now proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
The present revision is allowed in the aforestated terms.
December 15, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.