GURDIAL KAUR Vs. ASSO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision petition against the decision of the learned Additional district Judge, Faridkot, confirming on appeal the order of the trial Judge rejecting her application for setting aside the order dismissing her suit in default.

(2.) ONE Bhag Singh was the owner of about 358 Kanals of land, situate in village gobindgarh, District Bhatinda. After his death, according to Gurdial Kaur, plaintiff, who is his daughter, she and the deceased's widow Mst. Asso became the owners of his estate. On 27th January, 1966, Asso sold 90 Kanals 5 Marlas of land to gurbachan Singh and five others for Rs. 50,000/ -. Thereupon, Gurdial Kaur brought a suit for possession of her one half share in the entire holding of Bhag singh. This suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 20th April, 1968. On that day, she did not appear, but her counsel did so and submitted that he had no instructions from his client. On this the trial Judge dismissed the suit in default. On 4th May, 1968, an application under O. 9, R. 9, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by Gurdial Kaur for the restoration of the suit. It was alleged by her that she was an old lady of more than 70 years of age. She had very poor eye-sight and was hard of hearing. On 20th April, 1968, she had boarded the bus for reaching faridkot, where her case was being tried but unfortunately on the way the bus went out of order and since no other bus was available, she reached the Court about an hour or one and a half hour late. She then learnt that her suit had been dismissed in default. She had at that time no money with her to move an application for the restoration of the suit and pay the additional fee of her counsel. She was further informed that the application for the restoration of the suit could be filed within 30 days. It was stated in the application that the delay on her part was not wilful and her absence from the Court was beyond her control.

(3.) THIS application was contested both by Asso and her vendees. The trial Judge dismissed the same holding that the plaintiff was unable to show that there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the suit. It was, however, found by the learned Judge that the said application had been filed within limitation.