BHAGIRATH Vs. RUKNA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order whereby, the application for restoration of the restoration application, which was dismissed in default on 22.07.2010 (Annexure P-3) was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur on 01.08.2014. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is one the plaintiffs has not been able to get his lis decided on merits and, therefore, should not be penalized for no fault of his.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner, who is one of the plaintiffs, had filed a suit for specific performance of agreements dated 05.01.1981, 21.12.1981 and 26.09.1990 regarding the agricultural land measuring 56 kanals 5 marlas. The suit was filed on 02.04.1997. It was dismissed in default for the first time on 20.07.1999 and restored on 14.08.1999, subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs. However, since the said costs were never paid, the suit was eventually dismissed on 30.09.2003 for the non-payment of costs by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Ferozepur . A time barred civil appeal was filed on 29.11.2003 accompanied with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that one of the appellants was sick and he could not come to the Court. The appeal was dismissed in default for the first time on 04.08.2004. Thereafter, an application dated 30.09.2004 was filed for restoration of the appeal on account of the fact that the non-appearance of the appellants and their counsel was on account of domestic problem and the counsel being busy in some other Court. The application for restoration was again dismissed as none had appeared for the applicant on 22.07.2010. Resultantly, another application was filed for restoration of the restoration application which has now been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2014.

(3.) The Lower Appellate Court has considered and summarized all the facts regarding the conduct of the petitioner and his family members regarding the dilly dallying nature of the plaintiffs and how the litigation has been kept hanging and has declined to restore the application in the absence of any justified explanation.