INDER SINGH Vs. INDERJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Patiala, whereby application for restoration of the suit as well as application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration were dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned orders.

(2.) A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court referred to the long period consumed by the plaintiff-petitioner, in producing his evidence, before his suit was dismissed in default. Consuming the alleged long time by the plaintiff-petitioner in producing his evidence, should not have been made a ground for dismissal of the applications for restoration of the suit as well as application for condonation of delay of 75 days, in filing the application for restoration. Since learned trial Court fell in serious error of law, while passing the impugned order on irrelevant grounds, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

(3.) It is the settled proposition of law that every Court of law must make an endeavour to decide the lis between the parties on its merits instead of technicalities, including the delay etc., so as to do a complete and substantial justice between the parties. The lis has to be decided on merits, but only after granting reasonable opportunities to both the parties. So far as the delay of 75 days in filing the application for restoration is concerned, it was not an inordinate long delay and ought to have been condoned by the learned trial Court.