SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. RAMNIWAS & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.07.2004, passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar, in misc. case no. 08 of 2004, titled as Sarjadi vs Ramniwas, and also to quash the order dated 01.03.2013, passed by V Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, in misc. civil appeal no. 161 of 2006, Surendra Kumar vs Ramnivas and others. A further prayer has been made to allow the restoration application dated 25.02.2004 under Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC.

(2.) Grandmother of petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondents in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar, for cancellation of sale deed. After the death of his grandmother, petitioner was made party on behalf of the deceased. Said suit was pending since 1984. On 10.02.2004, when nobody appeared for the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed due to non-presence of the petitioner. On 25.02.2004, petitioner filed restoration application with supporting affidavit under Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar, dismissed such an application, against which the petitioner filed misc. civil appeal, without getting any success. Hence, present writ petition.

(3.) It is, no doubt, true that there was laxity on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, but the law remains that, as far as possible, any lis should be decided on merits, unless a party sleeps over his or her rights, without sufficient reasons.