SURINDER KUMAR Vs. RAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 10.4.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide which he has dismissed an application of the petitioner for restoration of civil appeal which was dismissed for default of the petitioner on 5.12.1995. A civil suit No. 902 was instituted in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Malerkotla on 13.5.1991 by respondent Ram Nath against the revisionist Surinder Kumar and Mohan Lal, both sons of Ram Nath aforesaid for the relief of mandatory injunction. The said civil suit was decreed with cost and the defendants, namely, Surinder Kumar revisionist and Mohan Lal were directed to vacate the house involved in the said suit and to deliver its vacant possession to Ram Nath, plaintiff-respondent within one month from the date of the decree. Surinder Kumar preferred Civil Appeal No. 106 dated 3.10.1994 in the Court of District Judge, Sangrur which was transferred to the Court of Shri B.R. Bansal, Additional District Judge, Sangrur for disposal. The civil appeal came up for hearing on 5.12.1995 when Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate represented the appellant Surinder Kumar (revisionist) and pleaded no instructions on behalf of appellant Surinder Kumar. The learned Additional District Judge thereafter dismissed the appeal for want of instructions and ordered the file to be consigned to the record room. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, a copy of which has been placed on record, reads as under :-

(2.) SURINDER Kumar petitioner on coming to know of the said order dismissing the civil appeal for want of instructions moved Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 22.1.1997 praying for setting aside of the said order and for restoring civil appeal for hearing on merit. The civil misc. aforesaid came up for hearing before Shri Pritam Singh, Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 10.4.1997 and the same was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 10.4.1997 dismissing the application for restoration of the civil appeal, Surinder Kumar has filed the civil revision.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and have perused the impugned orders carefully.