The statutory period for filing a restoration application would be the date of the order and not the knowledge of such order, and condonation of delay is not permissible in the absence of any application.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, on 21.11.2009 (impugned order), whereby he affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court on 30.06.2006, dismissing the application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner Harbans Lal and Yog Raj filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents before the trial Court at Hamirpur and on 20.05.1996, the suit was decreed for possession of the house situated on the suit land by way of ejectment and further the respondents were restrained from raising construction on the suit land.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal before the learned first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, who vide his judgment dated 24.05.2003 allowed the same and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh with a further direction to afford opportunities to the parties to lead evidence on the additional issues framed. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 08.07.2003.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed FAO No. 357/2003 before this Court. On 28.07.2003, notices were issued to the respondents and further proceedings before the learned trial Court were ordered to be stayed till the next date which was fixed for 12th of September, 2003.

5. It is conceded that the stay order was not extended after 12.09.2003 and when the case was taken up on 09.10.2003 by the learned trial Court, the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed in default and nonappearance of the plaintiffs.

6. It is vehemently argued by Shri K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rajneesh K.Lal, Advocate, for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is extremely harsh taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were under a bonafide belief that the proceedings in the Court below had been stayed and, therefore, non-appearance of the petitioners on the date was neither willful nor deliberate or for that matter be termed to be intentional.

7. On the other hand, Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri B.C. Verma, Advocate, for the respondents would argue that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they were fully aware of the fact that the stay order passed was only operative up to 12.09.2003 and not thereafter unless and until the same was further extended and the petitioners having failed to get the stay order extended, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The petitioners have only themselves to blame and cannot be heard to complain against the impugned order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

8. It would be noticed that when FAO No.357/2003 came up for consideration before this Court, the following order came to be passed:-

"Issue notice in the appeal as well as in CMP No.629 of 2003 to the respondents, returnable for 12-9-2003 to show cause why this appeal be not heard and finally disposed of at the admission stage looking to the controversy involved in it. Notices will be given dasti to the appellants/their learned counsel for getting the respondents served for the said date through the process serving agency of the court concerned. Steps to be taken within two days and notices will be delivered during the course of this week.

Subject to any order that can be passed after hearing the opposite side, in the interim, further proceedings in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in civil suit No.111 of 1990, titled Tirt