##PAGE1##

CR-4070-2026 (O&M) -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4070-2026 (O&M)

(128

Date of Decision:14.05.2026

SIMARJEET KAUR

… Petitioner

Versus

MANINDER KAUR

... Respondent

-.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:- Mr. Karnesh Verma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

-.-

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The petitioner moves this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, invoking its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction to

impugn the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional competence of the order

dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-1). By way of the impugned order, the

learned Court below erroneously entertained and allowed the respondent-

plaintiff’s application for restoration, thereby reviving a suit previously

dismissed for non-prosecution and directing its restoration to its original

numerical file. This revision seeks to address the patent illegality inherent

in the lower Court's exercise of discretion.

2. The foundational facts giving rise to the present proceedings

are that a civil suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff was pending

adjudication before the learned Civil Judge and was listed on 21.08.2024

for filing of reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of

GAURAV SOROT

2026.05.19 10:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-4070-2026 (O&M) -:2:-

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), as well as for

arguments on the applications filed under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI

Rule 17 CPC. On the said date, none appeared on behalf of the

respondent-plaintiff and, after waiting till 4:00 PM, the learned trial Court

dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.

2.1. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application

seeking restoration of the suit on the grounds that her counsel could not

appear before the Court due to illness and that the non-appearance was

neither intentional nor deliberate. It was further pleaded that valuable civil

rights of the respondent-plaintiff were involved and grave prejudice would

ensue in case the suit was not restored.

2.2. The said application was contested by the present petitioner;

however, the learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order, allowed the

application and restored the suit to its original position.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition

has been preferred before this Court.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book minutely with his able

assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit

in question is vexatious and has been instituted solely with an oblique

motive to harass the petitioner. It has been argued that the subject matter of

the suit is fully covered by a binding family settlement and duly registered

documents executed by the respondent-plaintiff herself and, therefore, no

subsisting cause of action survives in her favour. It has further been

GAURAV SOROT

2026.05.19 10:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-4070-2026 (O&M) -:3:-

contended that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as well as by

the principles of res judicata embodied under Section 11 CPC.

5.1. It has also been argued that the learned Civil Judge failed to

appreciate that no sufficient cause was made out for restoration of the suit.

According to the petitioner, the restoration application was neither signed

by the plaintiff nor supported by an affidavit at the time of filing and,

therefore, could not be treated as a validly instituted application in the eyes

of law. It has further been contended that no documentary material was

produced to substantiate the alleged illness of the counsel and even the

authority of the counsel to represent the respondent-plaintiff was disputed

on the ground that the authenticity of the power of attorney itself was

questionable.

5.2. However, the issues relating to the alleged non-maintainability

of the suit on account of res judicata, bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC,

ab