NEERAJ PANGOTRA Vs. HARISH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) Petitioner, who has filed a suit for recovery Rs.1,10,000/ - against the respondent, assails the order dated 12.8.2011 of learned trial Court whereby his application for restoration of suit, which had been dismissed in default, stands dismissed, by means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the suit was dismissed in default on 31.3.2010. An application was moved for restoration of that suit, which was listed for hearing on 13.5.2010, but on account of non -appearance of the petitioner that application was dismissed. Thereafter, an application for restoring the said application (for restoration of main suit) was moved and that too was dismissed in default on 16.4.2011. After that another application was moved for restoring the application for restoration of first application, under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. That application has been dismissed vide impugned order, on the ground that repeated dismissal of the main suit and the applications for restoration, in default of appearance of the petitioner, indicate that he is not interested in pursuing the suit. The order shows that respondent -defendant did not appear despite service of notice to oppose petitioner's prayer for restoration of the said application.