JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Ludhiana, vide which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell on 29.08.1998 with respect to an alleged agreement to sell dated 28.05.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner was in jail from 30.04.1996 till 20.09.1996 in case FIR no.42 dated 28.04.1996 under Section 18, 16, 85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Phillaur and was released on 20.09.1996 and thus could not have executed agreement to sell dated 28.05.1996 and has referred to certificate dated 28.05.1999 which has been annexed as Annexure P-6. It is argued that the said suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 02.02.2008 and the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC when he came to know about the said ex-parte judgment and decree. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appearing in the said proceedings on every date, but since on 01.01.2020 he fell sick and was confined to bed, he could not appear on 10.01.2020. It is submitted that the trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 had dismissed the case of the petitioner in default and the petitioner, after having fully recovered, filed an application for restoration on 04.03.2020. It is submitted that in the said process, the delay of 25 days occurred with respect to which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing restoration application was filed.

3. It is further argued that the medical certificate showing that the petitioner was suffering from Enteric fever with jaundice since 01.01.2020 and was advised complete bed rest, was affixed along with the said application. It is submitted that instead of allowing the said application and restoring the case, the trial Court by taking a hyper technical view had dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 02.05.2025. It is submitted that although the medical certificate has been considered but the trial Court had, primarily on the ground that the petitioner in the application had stated that he was confined to bed till 30.10.2020, dismissed the said application. It is submitted that apparently the date 30.10.2020 is a typing error, inasmuch as, the medical certificate clearly shows that the petitioner was confined to bed till dated 30.01.2020 and since the application was filed on 04.03.2020, thus, the question of petitioner being ill till 30.10.2020 does not arise. It is further submitted that in the said circumstances, the application should have been allowed and the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC be restored.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent has an ex-parte judgment and decree in her favour and the petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which also was not followed up by the petitioner and on 10.01.2020, the petitioner or his counsel did not appear and thus, the said application was dismissed in default vide order dated 10.01.2020. It is submitted that the application for restoration was not filed within the prescribed period and even the averments made in the application to the effect that he was confined to bed till 30.10.2020 was apparently a wrong averment. Learned counsel for the respondent has further referred to the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Court to highlight the fact that at least the respondent should be paid litigation expenses to the extent of Rs.20,000/-.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONER IN REBUTTA