LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-803

BHIRA Vs. SULTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

Decided On August 21, 2013
BHIRA Appellant
V/S
Sultan Singh And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure P -1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution as well for non -payment of costs and order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P -3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby application for restoration of civil miscellaneous appeal has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of present petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents which was dismissed in default on 26.07.2007. The application for restoration was also dismissed and civil revision preferred before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) CPC along with application for condonation of delay of 344 days but since on two dates, the petitioner could not lead evidence in application for condonation of delay and did not pay costs of Rs. 200/ -, therefore, the application along with appeal was dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.09.2010. The application for restoration of appeal has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.09.2011. Hence, this civil revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the appeal was rightly dismissed as despite sufficient opportunities, the petitioner neither produced evidence nor paid the cost imposed by Court. For the reasons, the application for restoration has also been rightly dismissed. There is no illegality in the impugned orders.