PREMWATI AND OTHERS Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 16.02.2009, rendered by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rohtak, the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs for setting aside the order dated 08.12.2005 and for restoration of the suit, was since dismissed. As even the appeal against the said order failed and was dismissed by the first appellate court vide order dated 20.11.2013, petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court.

(2.) In an application moved by the petitioners, it was maintained that in a suit filed by the petitioners, that was listed before Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rohtak, they continued to appear with their counsel till 08.06.2005. The matter was adjourned to 08.12.2005, for recording plaintiffs' evidence, but as plaintiff-Premwati suffered from Anemia, she could not appear before the court on the date fixed. However, the petitioner-Premwati duly informed her counsel about her illness. And, she was assured by her counsel that he would get the case adjourned. After two months, she again telephonically asked her counsel of the date fixed in the matter and she was told that the matter was listed for 15.02.2006. As she continued to be ill, she again informed her counsel on 14.02.2006 that she would not be able to appear even on 15.02.2006, as her condition was serious. She was assured that as and when her presence would be required or is necessary, she would be intimated. But, it was only on 15.12.2007, when she came to see her counsel and enquired about the fate of her suit, she was told that the same had been dismissed in default. As apparently, petitioner-Premwati was not at fault for her non-appearance, thus, the application.

(3.) In response, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the contents of the application were wholly concocted and there exists no ground to restore the suit. The application was barred by time. Accordingly, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the application.