IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (131 Date of Decision:-09.02.2026 BALWINDER KAUR AND ANR … Petitioners Versus BALDEV SINGH AND ORS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the concurrent orders dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure A-I) and 04.09.2019 (Annexure A-II). The Petitioners contend that the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed a manifest error of law in refusing to restore the suit, resulting in a failure of justice. The Petitioners seek to quash the impugned orders on the grounds that they are perverse, jurisdictionally flawed, and contrary to the settled principles of procedural equity.

2. The petitioners (Original Plaintiffs) instituted a civil suit for ₹

damages amounting to 1 crore through their power of attorney, accompanied by an application to sue as indigent persons. Upon the dismissal of the indigent status application on 10.09.2014, the learned Trial Court granted a brief window until 17.09.2014 to remit the requisite court fees.

2.1. Following a single request for adjournment, the matter was posted to 19.09.2014, on which date the suit was dismissed for non- prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the CPC due to the Petitioners' non- appearance. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the dismissal, the Petitioners moved for restoration on 21.10.2014. However, the learned Civil Court, and subsequently the First Appellate Court, adopted a hyper- technical approach, dismissing the restoration plea and the statutory appeal respectively. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, which the Petitioners contend are marked by jurisdictional error and procedural perversity, this revision petition is preferred.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had no knowledge of the order dated 19.09.2014 dismissing the suit and that, upon acquiring such knowledge, the application seeking restoration was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It was further contended that the learned courts below failed to duly appreciate the peculiar and mitigating circumstances of the petitioners, namely that petitioner No.1 is a widow, petitioner No.2 is residing abroad, and petitioner No.3 is an elderly lady aged about 95 years and physically incapacitated. It was also urged that the proceedings were being conducted through a general power of attorney holder, a resident of Village Rohti, District Kurukshetra, who, at the relevant time, was suffering from severe visual impairment, as a result whereof neither the petitioners nor the attorney was aware of the dismissal of the suit. On these premises, it was argued that the impugned orders suffer from material irregularity and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, and are therefore unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

4. I have considered the submissions and subjected the underlying record to close scrutiny. After examining the material facts and the procedural history, the following position emerges.

5. The application for restoration was dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation. It was observed that the suit had been dismissed on 19.09.2014 under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and, in terms of Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the application for restoration was required to be filed within 30 days thereof, i.e. on or before 19.10.2014. However, the restoration application was filed only on 15.11.2014, admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and without any accompanying application seeking condonation of delay.

5.1. It was further held that the petitioners–plaintiffs were aware of the pendency of the proceedings and had deliberately chose not to appear. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the