Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sito Kaur @ Surjit Kaur vs Manpreet Kaur And Another on 21 July, 2014
CR No.2913 of 2014 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2913 of 2014
Date of decision: July 21, 2014.
Sito Kaur @ Surjit Kaur
... Petitioner
v.
Manpreet Kaur and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present: Shri Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral):
Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, instant petition has been moved for setting aside order dated 28.9.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana (Annexure P-7), vide which application filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 16.8.2013 (Annexure P-5) as also restoration of application under order I Rule 10 CPC of the petitioner was dismissed.
Petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is pending adjudication before the lower court in which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by petitioner Smt. Sito Kaur alias Surjit Kaur. It was dismissed in default on 2.4.2013. The main petition which was pending adjudication, however, was allowed on 16.8.2013. Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.07.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.2913 of 2014 -: 2 :-
The petitioner had moved an application before the lower court for restoration of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC as also for recall of the order dated 16.8.2013 vide which the main petition under Section 8 of the Act had been decided.
Perusal of order of 2.4.2013 of dismissal of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-4) reveals that the petitioner had not been pursuing her case regularly and effectively which resulted in dismissal of her application. Even after dismissal on 2.4.2013 of her application which had been filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the petition under Section 8 of the Act remained pending for more than four and a half months during which period six adjournments were granted. Application was moved by the petitioner for recall of the order of 16.8.2013 and restoration of her application of 21.9.2013 only after a highly prolonged delay of adjudication of the main petition under Section 8 of the Act. Plea of the petitioner that their counsel neither appeared nor informed them about the proceedings in the case, is not tenable as there is no such material on record to sustain and support their claim.
No merit.
Dismissed.
[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] July 21, 2014. Judge kadyan Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.07.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh