Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: (Oral) - The comments received from Mrs. Lukhvinder Kaur, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, have been perused. No further comments from District Judge, Amritsar, are required.

2. This petition assails the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred as ‘the petitioner’) against the order 06.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, dismissing her application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default on 16.02.1999.

3. The suit was filed on 17.11.1995 and the same was dismissed in default on 16.02.1999. The application for restoration of the suit was filed on 28.09.2000. The suit was dismissed in default at the very initial stage. Both the Courts below appear to have wasted 8 years in deciding the application for restoration of the suit. Even otherwise, in case of dismissal of a suit in default, there is no bar in restoring the same.

4. It has come to my notice that the Courts below take much time in deciding such type of applications and do not apply their mind and continue to adjourn the same for nothing. The meritorious claims could not be thrown away unheard. The dismissal of such kind of applications would again invite filing of other suits. Even otherwise, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Roshan Lal & another Vs. Rajinder Kumar & others, 2007(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 402, observed as under:-

“3. Very often, in a number of cases, I have noticed a fanciful tendency on the part of the trial Judges to leisurely and pleasurely deal with interlocutory applications filed in pending suits. It is a great travesty of justice and a very grave misfortune of the litigants that the interlocutory applications in pending suits take such a long time for disposal whereas ordinarily and in the normal course these should be disposed of within a very very short time. In normal course and ordinarily in usual circumstances it should not take more a couple of weeks or a couple of months for disposing of these applications. Actually, if the restoration applications are filed within the limitation period, or if some other interlocutory applications are filed for grant of some innocuous or small reliefs, the trial Courts should ignore frivolous and fallacious defences, objections or contests to these applications and should ensure to decide all such applications with utmost expedition. The trial Courts perhaps do not realize that keeping such applications pending for long time, as in the present case for as long as four years, defeats the ends of justice because the disposal of suits delayed by that much period.

4. While the trial Court in this case unnecessarily took four years in disposing of a very simple application for restoration of a suit despite the fact that the application was filed within limitation period, the appeal Court on its part did not better as it took exactly one and half years in disposing of a simpler application for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal under Order 43Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Actually, I do not subscribe to the view that in such a simple application for condonation of delay in filing such a simple appeal against the rejection of a restoration application, the parties should be burdened with leading of evidence by production of witnesses. The approach of the appeal Courts in such matters should be to advance the cause of justice and such a course can best be achieved by dispensing with the leading of evidence by production of witnesses. If evidence indeed is found to be inevitable in certain types of cases, the Courts should adopt the summary procedure by directing the parties to file the affidavits and counter affidavits of the respective parties and their witnesses. Any how the all embracing approach should be to advance the cause of justice and that object can best be achieved by shortenin