IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110+241 CR-7157-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 03.03.2025 Raj Kumar ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gurjant Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present petition has been filed by the plaintiff no.1under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of order dated 09.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the suit for specific performance dismissed in default for want of prosecutionon 23.07.2013, had also been dismissed; with further prayer for restoration of the Civil Suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner had amply demonstrated before the learned Courts below that there were valid and cogent reasons given by the petitioner for being unable to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.07.2013. The petitioner had produced exhaustive medical record (Mark A to Mark D/Annexure P3 herein) to show that the petitioner was admitted in hospital at the said time and was therefore, unable to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.07.2013. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit of the petitioner in default on 23.07.2013 was uncalled for. It is submitted that even the application for restoration of the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P2); and the appeal thereagainst has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 09.05.2017 on ground of delay. Ld. counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan” Criminal Appeal No.1262 of 2008 decided on 12.08.2008, to submit that “...The expression “sufficient cause” is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice – that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court....”. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders of the courts below be set aside.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.

5. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2008, the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 along with Sukhpal Kaur/plaintiff no.2 had filed a suit seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 11.05.2005 executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff regarding area of 3 kanal i.e. 1800 square yards out of area 13 kanal 7 marla; and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. Issues were framed in the case on 17.2.2011. However, as the petitioner failed to conclude his evidence, and as the petitioner also failed to put in appearance, the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure P1).

6. Subsequently an application dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure P2), was moved for restoration of the suit; however, only by the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 Raj Kumar and Sukhpal Kaur/plaintiff no.2. Restoration was soughton the ground that on 28.06.2013 the petitioner was admitted in Colombia Asia Hospital, Patiala and was operated for Hernia. He was discharged on 30.06.2013 and he was advised compete bed rest. As such he could not come present in Court on 23.07.2013.

7. Vide order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-2), the said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on the grounds that in case, the petitioner was not available on 23.07.2013, then plaintiff no.2 Sukhpal Kaur could have appeared b