HIRDA RAM Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the order impugned is declining of prayer of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) for restoration of the suit which was dismissed on 27. 12. 1978.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of land measuring 14 Kanals 18 Marlas, which was purchased by the defendants (respondents herein) for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -. The suit was filed on 9/13/4-1978. On one date of hearing i. e. 6. 12. 1978, the case was adjourned to 27. 12. 1978 for filing of written statement by the respondents. On 27. 12. 1978, the suit was dismissed in default because of non-appearance of the plaintiff or his counsel. An application for setting aside the order dated 27. 12. 1978 was filed on 3. 1. 1979. In the application, it was stated that the counsel wrongly noted the date as 3. 1. 1979, and also informed the plaintiff accordingly. When the plaintiff came to the Court on 3. 1. 1979, on enquiry, he found that his case had already been dismissed in default on 27. 12. 1978. On the same very date, i. e. 3. 1. 1979, plaintiff made an application for restoration of the suit. The application, on contest, was dismissed by the Trial Court and in appeal, the said order was affirmed by the District Judge. This order is now being impugned by the plaintiff by way of present revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner should not be made to suffer because of mistake of the counsel, and particularly if an application for restoration of the suit was made within time. For this, he placed reliance upon judgment of this Court as Hukmi Rai v, Rattan Chand, 1987 P. L. J. 350. Atma Ram and Ors. v. Molu Ram, 1991 (1) RRR 285 and Asha Bhardwaj v. Maharaj Kishan, 1991 (2) RRR 164.