CANARA BANK Vs. PREM BHUSAN DEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19th March, 1990 passed by Shri R.K. Jain, Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi whereby he has rejected the plaintiff-petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default on 14.12.1988.

(2.) On perusal of the trial court record I find that the application for restoration of the suit was filed on 5th April, 1989 and the ground mentioned in the application was that on 18.8.1988 when the matter came up before the trial court, the lawyers were on strike. The next day, when the counsel for the plaintiff enquired about the next date of hearing in the matter, the reader of the trial court informed him that the matter was adjourned to 6th March, 1989. On 6th March, 1989 when the counsel for the plaintiff attended the court, he found that the matter was not listed. Consequently he made enquiries from the Ahlmad and found that in fact the matter was adjourned to 14.12.1988 (wrongly mentioned as 24.12.1988 in the application for restoration) and since on 14.12.1988 nobody appeared for the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed in default.

(3.) The application for restoration is dated 4th April, 1989 arid is supported by an affidavit of counsel for the plaintiff. It was filed in Court on 5th April, 1989. No separate application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application late was filed.