NAMIT KUMAR
Darshan Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application history and preceding orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's explanation for non-appearance. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's evaluation of petitioner's conduct. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. denial of the revision petition due to lack of merit. (Para 7) |
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 28.0
A party cannot shift their accountability for negligence to their attorney; multiple applications dismissed for the same reasons demonstrate abuse of the judicial process.
The mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court had the requisite jurisdiction.
The defendant-petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the counsel, and the procedure is meant for the advancement of justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.