##PAGE1##

CR-1399-2025 (O&M) -1

182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1399-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

Manjeet Kaur ......Petitioner

Vs.

Ashok Kumar ......Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present : Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate,

Ms. Trishanjali Chopra, Advocate, and

Mr. Jatin Verma, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate,

for the respondent.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated

21.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby

the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Court could not

appear only on 21.10.2024 and due to non-appearance, the appeal was ordered

to be dismissed in default. He further contends that the absence on the part of

the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate and the appeal was

dismissed due to the fault of her counsel. He, therefore, prays that the present

revision petition be allowed and one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to

pursue her appeal.

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2026.05.15 17:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-1399-2025 (O&M) -2

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, has rightly dismissed the appeal

filed by the petitioner. He further contends that petitioner has remedy under

Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for re-admission of appeal filed by the petitioner, which

was dismissed in default. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be

dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

file with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of the case file shows that the counsel for the petitioner

was appearing on each and every date except on 21.10.2024. The litigant

should not suffer on account of fault of her counsel. A lis should be decided on

merits rather on technicalities, therefore, justice demands that one last effective

opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to appear before the

Appellate Court to pursue her appeal.

6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondent with

respect to alternate remedy available with the petitioner is concerned, the same

is though correct but the language used in Order 41 Rule 19 CPC shows that it

is not mandatory provision. Further learned counsel of the petitioner contends

that petitioner is a poor lady and she moved an application before the Appellate

Court to pursue her appeal as an indigent person.

7. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of this particular

case and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one

opportunity to the petitioner to pursue her appeal.

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2026.05.15 17:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-1399-2025 (O&M) -3

8. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and

impugned order dated 21.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge,

Kaithal, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is granted one last effective

opportunity to appear before the Appellate Court to pursue her appeal. The

petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 19.05.2026.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE

14.05.2026

Virender

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2026.05.15 17:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document