MOHINDER SINGH Vs. GURMELS SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order, vide which application of the petitioner -plaintiff for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default on 22.3.1991, was declined.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner -plaintiff filed a suit and after notice, the said suit was fixed for 26.2 1991 before the trial court. Service of defendant No. 2 was not complete and the case was adjourned to 22.3.1991 for service of the defendant No. 2 and on the said date when the petitioner -plaintiff failed to put up his appearance, the suit was dismissed in default. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application on 19.4.1991 for recalling the order and restoration of the suit dismissed for non -prosecution. Notice of the said application was given to the respondents, who appeared and opposed the same. The trial Court framed the issues. Parties got their evidence recorded and ultimately the application was declined by the Trial Court by stating that no sufficient cause has been shown regarding absence of the petitioner -plaintiff/his counsel on the date fixed i.e. 22.3.1991.

(3.) Heard counsel for the parties. Sh. Bajwa appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner moved the application immediately when he came to know about the impugned order. There exists sufficient evidence on record to show that absence of the petitioner was not wilful and he could not appear because of some confusion regarding, as to in which court his case is pending after transfer.