CR-1709-2024 1 240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1709-2024 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 GURIQBAL SINGH ......... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. D.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.3. **** LAPITA BANERJI , J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, due to the negligence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the ill health of the petitioner, the petitioner was not represented before the Court hearing his application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the learned ADJ, vide the impugned order dated May 18, 2022, correctly dismissed the application for restoration filed by the petitioner, since the conduct of the petitioner warranted the same. ASGAR ALI 2026.07.24 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1709-2024 2 3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also noted the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that no interest will be claimed for the period of delay for which the petitioner himself is responsible. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the ill health of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated May 18, 2022, and restore the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. 5. The said application will be restored only on payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh and receipt of the same being shown to the Court concerned. 6. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner succeeds in the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, the petitioner will not be permitted to claim any interest from the date when his application was dismissed for default on May 21, 2014, for the first time till the date the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is decided by the learned Additional District Judge. 7. Disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Ali Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No ASGAR ALI 2026.07.24 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document