Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs Parveen Kumar And Anr on 11 December, 2018
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-949-MA of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.12.2018
Deepak Kumar
......... Appellant
Versus
Parveen Kumar and another
......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Akshay Sandhir, Advocate for the respondents.
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. (Oral)
CRM No.15193 of 2016 Prayer in the present application is for condonation of 1483 days' delay in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 1483 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRM-A-949-MA of 2016 Applicant/appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 11.02.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, vide which, the complaint filed by him was dismissed for non-prosecution as well as the order dated 08.01.2016, dismissing the application for restoration of the complaint.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, Leave to appeal is granted.
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2019 16:47:02 :::
CRM-A-949-MA of 2016 (O&M) -2-
With the consent of both the parties, main case is taken up today itself for final hearing as the matter pertains to the year 2016. MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.02.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, thereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed for want of prosecution as well as the order dated 08.01.2016, vide which, the application for restoration was declined.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as a matter of fact, wrong date was noted by learned Counsel representing the appellant before learned trial Court as 20.04.2012 instead of 11.02.2012 and due to that mistake, none appeared on behalf of the appellant before learned trial Court and that led to the dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution.
The reasons assigned for the rejection of the application for restoration by learned Magistrate seem to be valid because no such application was maintainable.
Since the non-appearance of the appellant on 11.02.2012 was not intentional, rather on account of noting a wrong date by learned Counsel representing the appellant before learned trial Court and the appellant could not be penalized for the same.
Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.02.2012 and 08.01.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar are set aside and case is remanded back to learned trial Court with the direction to restore the case at the same stage when it was dismissed for non-prosecution subject to payment of ` 5000/- as costs to be paid to the opposite side.
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2019 16:47:03 :::
CRM-A-949-MA of 2016 (O&M) -3-
Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 19.12.2018.
It is made clear that both the parties shall fully cooperate with the learned trial Court and the matter be decided expeditiously.
December 11, 2018 ( MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU )
Gagan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2019 16:47:03 :::