Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Gurjant Singh & Ors on 3 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095
Page 1 of 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
110+241 CR-7157-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.03.2025
Raj Kumar
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Gurjant Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladawale
Budhladawale, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present petition has been filed by the plaintiff no.1under under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of order dated 09.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Judge, Senior Division, Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the suit for specific performance dismissed in default for want of prosecution prosecutionon on 23.07.2013, had also been dismissed;; with further prayer for restoration of the Civi Civil Suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner had amply demonstrated before the learned Courts below that there were valid and cogent reasons given by the petitioner for being unable to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.07.2013. The petitioner had produced exhaustive medical recor record (Mark A to Mark D/Annexure /Annexure P3 herein) to show that the petitioner was admitted in hospital at the said time and was therefore, unable to appear before the learned 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 2 of 11 trial Court on 23.07.2013. Therefore, herefore, the dismissal of the suit of the petitioner in default default on 23.07.2013 was uncalled for. It is submitted that even the application for restoration of the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P2); and the appeal thereagainst has been dismissed by the learned A Additional dditional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 09.05.2017 on ground of delay. Ld. counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan" Criminal Appeal No.1262 of 2008 decided on 12.08.2008,, to submit that "...The expression "sufficient cause" is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub sub-serves serves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledg knowledgee that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court....". It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders of the courts below be set aside.
3. No other argument is mad made on behalf of the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.
5. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2008, the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 along with Sukhpal Kaur Kaur/plaintiff no.2 had filed a suit seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 11.05.2005 executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff regarding area of 3 kanal i.e. 1800 square yards out of area 13 kanal 7 marla marla; and suit for permanent 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 3 of 11 injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. Issues were framed in the case on 17.2.2011. However, as the petitioner failed to conclude his evidence, and as the petitioner also failed to put in appearance, the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure P P1).
6. Subsequently an application dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure P2), P2 was moved for restoration of the suit suit; however, only by the petitioner/plaintiff plaintiff no.1 Raj Kumar and Sukhpal Kaur Kaur/plaintiff no.2..
Restoration was soughton sought the ground that on 28.06.2013 the petitioner was admitted in Colombia Asia Hospital, Patiala and was operated for Hernia. He was discharged on 30.06.2013 30.06.201 and he was advised compete bed rest rest.. As such he could not come present in Court on 23.07.2013 23.07.2013.
7. Vide order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-2), the said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on the grounds that in case, the petitioner was not available on 23.07.2013, then plaintiff no.2 Sukhpal Kaur could have appeared before the Court on the date fixed; and that the petitioner had produced medical record Mark A to D as per which he was discharged on 30.06.2013. As per the documents C & D the petitioner had again travelled all the way to Patiala on 08.07.2013 for his medical treatment.
treatment Therefore, he could easily have contacted his counsel after 23.07.2013 and could have inquired about his case case. The learned trial court also took note of the fact that the application for restoration had 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 4 of 11 been filed after more than one month, month whereas limitation for filing application for restoration is 30 days.
days
8. The petitioner filed appeal against the order 27.05.2015.. Vide order dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure P4), the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur on the ground that the petitioner had not proved his original medical record Mark A to D as he had d only marked the photocopies of bills. The petitioner had also not examined any doctor to substantiate his plea that that he was operated for Hernia. It was also noted that as per the said Medical record the petitioner had travelled all the way to Patiala on 08.07.2013 for his treatment. Therefore, he could also have contacted/ met his counsel regarding the present case case. The learned Additional District Judge also noted that the suit was dismissed on 23.07.2013 and limitation to file application for restoration was 30 days but restoration application was moved after limitation period on 19.09.2013. No explanation has been given given by the petitioner for the above facts.
9. The above factual matrix reveals that the petitioner has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in his pursuit of the present litigation. The law of Limitation is enacted with a purpose purpose, as a handmaid aid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduce ignored reduce to an ineffective piece of paper by giving it the complete go-by. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty this Court to ensure that justice inuresto to both parties concerned. It is my view that grave injustice will be caused to the respondent in case the matter is restored at 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 5 of 11 this belated stage. As already noticed above, in the present case, the suit is of the year 2008; in respect of an agreement of 2005; in which issues were framed in 2011; whereafter matter was dismissed for non non-prosecution prosecution in 2013, as the petitioner had failed to conclude his evidence. It is also to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court is expended in ensuringaffording affording opportunities in the interest of justice. However, the same cannot be misused to endlessly drag the matter to the unfair advantage or disadvantage of either party.It party.It has been recently held by the Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Delhi High Court in case of "Moddus Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi)"
(Delhi) Law Finder Doc Id # 887148 887148, that:
"11.
11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil su suit it or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rusticc illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and
5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 6 of 11 pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of th the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the consequences."
10. I am in complete agreement with the above view expressed by the Delhi High Court. Further, ld. counsel for the petitioner can derive no help from the relied upon judgment in case of Ahmed Jaan supra as in the said case, the respondent therein had been apprehended on the basis of information that he belongs to terrorist outfit Tehreek Tehreek-ul--
Mujahideen;; whereafter he had faced trial and vide order dated 30.10.1998 the respondent/accused had been discharged holding that there was no legal evidence to show that he had committed any of the alleged acts. The appeal was filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) by wa wayy of Criminal Revision Petition 356/2004 which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 10.08.2005 on grounds of limitation. It was in this background the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State Government cannot be equated with civilian citizens holding that:-
"13. In G. Ramegowda, Major Versus Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 1988(1) RRR 555 : (1988(2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 7 of 11 justice and generally delays in preferring the appeal appealss are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, per-haps, haps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected, but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional onal decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for thee acts, omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents an andd where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes purposes with it. It was, there there-fore, fore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5,, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the consideration that go into tthe he judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic o off the functioning of the Government.
Government. Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape tape in the process of their ma making.
king. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have "a little play at the joints". Due recognition of these limitations on governmental functioning - of course, within reasonable limits - is necessary if the judicial approach is not to 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 8 of 11 be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision-making making process. The delay of over one year was accordingly condoned.
14. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red red-tape tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause"
should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice justice--
oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental mental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice justice-oriented oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid id by the State vis vis-a-vis vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts rts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorize the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 9 of 11 to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file thee appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an app appeal eal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants."
11. In the present case, as already noticed above, the reasons given by the petitioner for the delay, do not constitute sufficient cause. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be p put on the same footing as the State Agencies.
12. Relevant part of the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District District Judge, Sangrur is as under:
under:-
"10. The he case of the appellant/plaint appellant/plaintiff iff Raj Kumar, that on 28.06.2013, 2013, he was admitted to Colombia Asia Hospital, Patiala and was as Operated upon for Hernia. He was discharged on 30.06.2013 and advise complete rest and as such he could not come present in the court on 23.07.
23.07.2013.
2013. In support of his plea, the appellant ppellant himself appeared as AW1 and rendered into evidence is duly sworn affidavit EX EX-AW1/A, AW1/A, wherein he reiterated his pleaded version if the applicant was suffering from Hernia, to prove statement with regard to that it was his bounden duty to bring on record, the regional medical record and to prove the same as per rules of evidence, but the applicant neither has proved his original medical record, as he has only marked the he photocopies of bills. The appellant/plaintiff has also not examine the any doctor to 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 10 of 11 substantiate his plea that he was operated upon for his Hernia. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that he could not appear due to his ill health, his med medical ical record shows that the appellant Raj Kumar had travelled all the way to Patiala on 08.07.2013 for his medical treatment which further shows hows that he was in position of fit statement of health to make movement and in case he can visit the doctor at Patia Patiala, la, he could definitely meet his counsel at Sangrur. The case was dismissed in default on 23.07.2013 and there was sufficient time for him to enquire between 08.07.2013 to 23.07.2013 with his counsel which he failed to do which shows his negligence in this regard. For the conduct of the applicant shows that civil suit was filed in the year 2008, issues and the suit were framed on 17.02.2011 and when he failed to conclude evidence then finally on 23.07.2013 it was dismissed in default which also speaks volum volumee of conduct of the appellant that he never bothered about this case and it seems that the suit was filed by him to harass the defendants. The Ld. counsel for the appellant relied upon the observations made in Food Corporation of India versus Smt. Arvinder Kaur 2001 (3) C. C. Cases 30 (P & H) and V.Narayanaswamy versus Smt. (Karnataka)..
Doddaventatamma&Ors. 2006 (2) C. C. Cases 37 (Karnataka) I have gone through the pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the appellant but the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it was held that for the fault of the lawyer client should not suffer, but in the present case it is not the case. Further, in the second judicial pronouncement it has been mentioned that when the application for restoration has been filed in time at the suit should normally be restored, but in the present case the suit of the appellant was dismissed on 23.07.2013 and the limitation to file application for 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030095 Page 11 of 11 restoration was thirty days and the said application was moved after the limitation period. Further, it also speaks about the conduct of the appellant that after 23.07.2013 when the suit was dismissed d he did not enquire for the case for another thirty days. So in the given set of circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ld. trial court has rightly dismiss the application having been moved by the appellant/ plaintiff for restoration of suit, being time barred. So, the order under appeal passed by the Learned trial Court does not call for any interference.
interference."
13. I find no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments of the learned Courts below. The present petition is accordingly, dismissed.
dismiss
14. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
03.03.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2025 04:01:07 :::