The failure to provide sufficient cause to justify the delay in filing a restoration application results in the dismissal of such application, upholding the defendants' accrued rights.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018

Applicant-Prem Singh has filed these applications for restoration of his Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012, after condoning the delay in moving the application.

2. OMP No. 204 of 2018 has been filed for restoration of the Civil Suit, under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 has been filed under the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in moving the application for restoration.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above two applications, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

3.1 Applicant-Prem Singh and two others have filed the Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 for Specific Performance, against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed in default on 24.08.2017. On that day, this Court had passed the following order:-

“Court notices issued to the plaintiffs are reported to be served upon them, however, they neither put in appearance in person nor the counsel appearing for them under a Vakalatnama holds any instructions from them in respect of their meting compliance with the orders recorded by this Court on 16.11.2016, thereupon the learned counsel for the plaintiff is constrained to seek permission of this Court to withdraw his power of attorney for the plaintiffs. He is permitted to do so.

Consequently, the plaintiffs’ suit is dismissed in default. Court fee(s) in accordance with law be refunded to the plaintiffs. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.”

3.2 Applicant-Prem Singh has now filed OMP No. 204 of 2018, for restoration of his suit, which was dismissed in default.

3.3 Since, the said application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved.

3.4 The restoration of the suit, after condoning the delay, has been sought, mainly, on the ground, that after passing the order dated 24.08.2017, the counsel for the plaintiffs has sent the information with regard to the dismissal of the suit, but, no response has been received from plaintiff No. 1.

3.5 On 22.04.2018, one client, of the counsel representing applicant-Prem Singh, who, as per the application, was also witness to the agreement to sell, contacted the counsel in connection with some other case, then, the said client was requested by the counsel to inform the plaintiffs about the fate of the present Civil Suit, who, accordingly informed applicant Prem Singh. The said person had also found that Prem Singh is suffering from number of ailments and remained confine to bed. Applicant was also found to be suffering from Ulcer and Spinal problem. However, after the receipt of information, he immediately requested the Doctor to provide the medical c