IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No.3031 of 2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.07.2019

Ralli (since deceased) through L.Rs.

…Petitioner

versus

Malhara Singh and others.

…Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia

Present:

Mr. Durgesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

B.S. Walia, J.,

1.

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.02.2007, passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, dismissing the suit under

Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

‘CPC’), order dated 11.07.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Chandigarh, dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read

with Section 151 CPC as well as order dated 22.11.2016, passed by the

learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal against order

dated 11.07.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chandigarh, under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

2.

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition

are that petitioner-Ralli(since deceased) filed a civil suit through her son and

attorney Sarja Singh s/o Atma Singh for a declaration etc. that she was owner

in joint possession to the extent of 1/5^th share of estate left by Ram Ditta i.e.

land measuring 6 Kanals 17 Marlas, comprised in Khewat/Khatoni

RAJESH KUMAR

2019.08.20 12:47

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

CR No.3031 of 2019 (O&M) [2]

No.200/250, Khasra Nos/26 (0-9), 15 (7-15), 16 (7-11), 16/11 (7-7), 10/24 (7-

4) and 21/6 (3-18), kittas-6, total land measuring 34 kanals 4 marlas, situated

in village Dadu Majra, UT Chandigarh.

3.

It needs noticing here that earlier CR No.2450 of 2017 had been

filed by the petitioner through her L.Rs. against the same impugned orders i.e.

15.02.2007, 11.07.2014 and 22.11.2016. The same was dismissed in default.

Thereafter, CM Nos.25288-89-CII of 2018 in CR No.2450 of 2017 for

restoration of the main case was filed, whereupon, following order was passed

by this Court:-

“After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants-

petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the applications

with liberty to the applicants-petitioners to take appropriate

remedy available to them, in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.”

4.

Learned counsel contends that the application for restoration of

the civil revision dismissed in default was ordered to be withdrawn with

liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy available under the law,

therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.

5.

Learned counsel contends that the L.Rs. of the deceased

petitioner were illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies of law,

therefore, liberal approach ought to have been adopted in condoning the

delay, that the Courts below had erred in holding that L.Rs. of the deceased

petitioner had failed to make out a case of sufficient cause to show non-

appearance of the petitioner/attorney on 15.02.2007, that Shri Vinod Kumar,

Advocate had no authority on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff to appear and

make any statement on 15.02.2007, that the application ought to have been

RAJESH KUMAR

2019.08.20 12:47

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

CR No.3031 of 2019 (O&M) [3]

allowed on the basis of equity and good conscience as it was settled law that

no party should suffer unheard.

6.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the paper book.

7.

Order dated 15.02.2007 is reproduced as under:-

Pre-