A party cannot shift their accountability for negligence to their attorney; multiple applications dismissed for the same reasons demonstrate abuse of the judicial process.

Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

The challenge in the instant revision petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby 3rd application filed by the petitioner for the restoration of his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC which was dismissed in default vide order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) and for restoration of his 1st application filed for restoration of his application filed under Order 9 rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC which was dismissed in default on 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-4), has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as has been narrated in the petition are that respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit No.96338 of 2013 titled as ‘Sukhdev Singh and another Vs. Darshan Kaur and another’ on 28.05.2012 for grant of damages against the petitioner/defendant in which the petitioner/defendant was proceeded against exparte on 05.09.2012 and respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs have obtained exparte judgment and decree dated 23.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar by mentioning of wrong address of petitioner/defendant-Darshan Kaur. When the petitioner came to know about exparte decree dated 23.08.2014, she filed an application bearing No.478 of 2015 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC on 27.04.2015 for setting aside the exparte decree dated 23.08.2014. Counsel for the petitioner did not appear in the Court to further pursue the said application and due to which the said application was dismissed in default on 04.01.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application bearing No.339 of 2018 for restoration of application bearing No.478 of 2015 filed for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23.08.2014. The counsel for the petitioner again did not appear before the Court due to which the said application was also dismissed in default on 30.09.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed 2nd application bearing No.88 of 2022 for restoration of application bearing No.478 of 2015 as well as 1st application bearing No.339 of 2018 which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide impugned order dated 16.01.2023. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of application bearing No.478 of 2015 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC which was filed for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 23.08.2014, the counsel representing the petitioner said her that she need not to come in the Court on every date of hearing and when her presence is required he will call her. Thereafter, the said counsel had neither appeared in the Court nor informed the petitioner regarding the status of the application due to which the said application was dismissed in default on 04.01.2017. The petitioner could not contact his counsel because she got admitted in the hospital and has 50% disability and when she recovered and came to know that her application was dismissed in default, fresh application bearing No.339 of 2018 for restoration of application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by her but again her counsel did not appear before the Court and the said application was also dismissed in default on 30.09.2019. Due to Covid-19 pandemic the petitioner could not contact her counsel and was not aware about the dismissal of application bearing No.339 of 2018. When the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of her application, s