CR-5401- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 1. Union of India Sh. Prem Singh and another 2. Union of India Smt Paramjit Kaur and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, civil revisions convenience, facts are being taken from CR 2. laid to an order dated Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby an application filed the instance of the petitioner restoration of -2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of CR Union of India VERSUS Sh. Prem Singh and another CR Union of India VERSUS Paramjit Kaur and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel UOI for the petitioner in both cases Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate for respondent No.1 (CR-5401 for respondents No.1 & 2 (CR **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two civil revisions as common question of facts are involved convenience, facts are being taken from CR By way of present revision petition, challenge has been to an order dated 16.04.2018 Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby an application filed the instance of the petitioner having invoked Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of its application for restitution IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 CR-5401-2018 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents CR-5443-2018 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel UOI for the petitioner in both cases. Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate 5401-2018) for respondents No.1 & 2 (CR-5443-2018) This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two as common question of facts are involved therein. For convenience, facts are being taken from CR-5401-2018. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been (P-4) passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby an application filed having invoked Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for application for restitution, preferred Section 144 read ...Respondents ...Respondents This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two . For By way of present revision petition, challenge has been passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby an application filed at having invoked Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for Section 144 read SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5401- with Section 151 CPC stands dismissed. 3. respondents/ landow Bhogpur, 28.05.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ announc 4. Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be decided 23.08.1991. Still aggrieved, the landowners Section 54 of the Act 12.08.199 execution petitioner having deposited the enhanced amount of compensation. However, on 12.10.20 Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC seeking restitution; having alleged that certain amount in excess respondents/ dismissed application came to be filed on 26.08.2014 Executing Court landowners, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.201 revision petition. -2018 (O&M) [2] with Section 151 CPC stands dismissed. In the present case, certain land owned by the respondents/ landowners forming part of the revenue estate of Village , Tehsil Kalka was acquired 28.05.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ followed by an award under Section 11 of the Act announced on 27.01.1986. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents/ landowners filed Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be decided 23.08.1991. Still aggrieved, the landowners Section 54 of the Act, which was decided by this Court on 12.08.1999. In the meanwhile, the landowners/ respondents preferred execution petition(s) which were disposed of in the year 2005 petitioner having deposited the enhanced amount of compensation. However, on 12.10.2012, the petitioner preferred Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC seeking restitution; having alleged that certain amount in excess respondents/ landowners. The said restitution application dismissed in default on 24.05.2014. Praying for its restoration, an application came to be filed on 26.08.2014 Executing Court which was opposed at the instance of respondent landowners, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2018 and the same has been impugned by way of present revision petition. with Section 151 CPC stands dismissed. In the present case, certain land owned by the part of the revenue estate of Village acquired vide notification dated 28.05.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, award under Section 11 of the Act respondents/ landowners filed Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be decided 23.08.1991. Still aggrieved, the landowners filed appeal under which was decided by this Court on . In the meanwhile, the landowners/ respondents preferred disposed of in the year 2005; the petitioner having deposited the enhanced amount of compensation. 12, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC seeking restitution; having alleged that certain amount in excess was released in favour of the The said restitution application was in default on 24.05.2014. Praying for its restoration, an application came to be filed on 26.08.2014 before the learned which was opposed at the instance of respondent landowners, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated has been impugned by way of present In the present case, certain land owned by the part of the revenue estate of Village vide notification dated 28.05.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, award under Section 11 of the Act, respondents/ landowners filed on appeal under which was decided by this Court on . In the meanwhile, the landowners/ respondents preferred ; the petitioner having deposited the enhanced amount of compensation. application under Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC seeking restitution; having released in favour of the was in default on 24.05.2014. Praying for its restoration, an before the learned which was opposed at the instance of respondents/ landowners, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated has been impugned by way of present SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5401- 5. restitution applications were preferred in relating to the same acquisition and as per the knowledge petitioner before the were adjourned found that only seven of the two out of those 24.05.2014 on account of non representing dismissal of the restitution application knowledge of the petitioner on 31.07.20 application which were knowledge and having rejecting 6. of the respondents/ landowners submits that though the cause projected for the purpose of seeking restoration of the application applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, no details of other seven similar cases 20/26.08 (s) were -2018 (O&M) [3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar restitution applications were preferred in relating to the same acquisition, which were posted for 31 and as per the knowledge and belief petitioner before the learned Executing Court, all those were adjourned for 31.07.2014, however, on the said date, it was found that only seven of the nine applicatio two out of those were ordered to be dismissed in default on 24.05.2014 on account of non- representing the petitioner. It was thus submitted that the factum of dismissal of the restitution application knowledge of the petitioner on 31.07.20 application(s) seeking restoration thereof were thnus within the prescribed limitation from the date of knowledge and therefore, learned Court below committed an illegality having rejecting those applications. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ landowners submits that though the cause projected for the purpose of seeking restoration of the application (s) was that on 31.03.2014 all the nine restitution applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, no details of other seven similar cases were disclosed in the application 8.2014. He also submits that though ordered to be dismissed for non or the petitioner submits that similar restitution applications were preferred in nine execution petitions which were posted for 31.03.2014 and belief of the counsel representing the learned Executing Court, all those applications owever, on the said date, it was applications were listed, however, were ordered to be dismissed in default on -appearance of the counsel petitioner. It was thus submitted that the factum of dismissal of the restitution application (s) on 24.05.2014 came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 31.07.2014 and accordingly seeking restoration thereof were filed on 26.08.2014, within the prescribed limitation from the date of learned Court below committed an illegality On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ landowners submits that though the cause projected for the purpose of seeking restoration of the restitution was that on 31.03.2014 all the nine restitution applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, no details of disclosed in the application (s) dated .2014. He also submits that though the restitution application ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.05.2014, or the petitioner submits that similar execution petitions .03.2014 of the counsel representing the applications owever, on the said date, it was however, were ordered to be dismissed in default on counsel petitioner. It was thus submitted that the factum of on 24.05.2014 came to the accordingly .08.2014, within the prescribed limitation from the date of learned Court below committed an illegality On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ landowners submits that though the cause restitution was that on 31.03.2014 all the nine restitution applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, no details of dated the restitution application prosecution on 24.05.2014, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5401- however, application that too without filing an application seeking condonation of delay support daily diary of the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Executing Court was placed on record along with the application brief having noted thus, there was no illegality or perversity by learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 7. through the paper submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. petitioner, nine (09) restitution applications invoking Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC were filed at the i 12.10.2012, which were information extended Court, all the applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, on the said date, it came to 24.05.2014 and of non-appearance of paragraphs No.2 to 5 from the restoration application filed at the instance of the pet extracted hereunder: -2018 (O&M) [4] however, application(s) for restoration was filed on 26.08.2014 and that too without filing an application seeking condonation of delay thereof. Learned counsel further submits that neither any daily diary of the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Executing Court was placed on record along with the application(s) seeking restoration; nor even any photocopy of the brief having noted down the date as 31.07.2024 was appended and thus, there was no illegality or perversity by learned Court below while passing the impugned order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book, I am unable to find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. As per the case set up by learned counsel for the petitioner, nine (09) restitution applications invoking Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC were filed at the i 12.10.2012, which were thus listed on 31.03.2014 and as per the information extended by the learned , all the applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, on the said date, it came to the notice that two cases were adjourned to 24.05.2014 and were ordered to be dismissed in default on account appearance of counsel for paragraphs No.2 to 5 from the restoration application filed at the instance of the petitioner before the Courts below at Panchkula, are extracted hereunder:- for restoration was filed on 26.08.2014 and that too without filing an application seeking condonation of delay, in rned counsel further submits that neither any daily diary of the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Executing Court was placed on record along with the seeking restoration; nor even any photocopy of the down the date as 31.07.2024 was appended and thus, there was no illegality or perversity in the discretion exercised by learned Court below while passing the impugned order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone , I am unable to find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. As per the case set up by learned counsel for the petitioner, nine (09) restitution applications invoking Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC were filed at the instance of the petitioner on listed on 31.03.2014 and as per the by the learned counsel before the Executing , all the applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, on notice that two cases were adjourned to ordered to be dismissed in default on account counsel for the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs No.2 to 5 from the restoration application filed at the itioner before the Courts below at Panchkula, are for restoration was filed on 26.08.2014 and , in rned counsel further submits that neither any daily diary of the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Executing Court was placed on record along with the seeking restoration; nor even any photocopy of the down the date as 31.07.2024 was appended and in the discretion exercised Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone , I am unable to find any substance in the As per the case set up by learned counsel for the petitioner, nine (09) restitution applications invoking Section 144 read nstance of the petitioner on listed on 31.03.2014 and as per the before the Executing , all the applications were adjourned to 31.07.2014, however, on notice that two cases were adjourned to ordered to be dismissed in default on account the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs No.2 to 5 from the restoration application filed at the itioner before the Courts below at Panchkula, are SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5401- other seven applications seeking restitution were mentioned in the restoration dairy maintained by learned counsel representing the petition before the Courts below at Panchkula was appended with the restoration application; nor even photocopy of the brief of learned counsel having noted 31.07.2014 as the date of hearing was attached. Even no order dated 31.03.2014 passed in other seven similar applications which -2018 (O&M) [5] “2. That earlier the case was fixed for 29.3.2014 and adjourned to 24.5.2014 for consideration on the application filed by the applicant. But unfortunately the counsel of the applicant the date as 31.7.2014 as the similar cases were also pending in the court and were fixed for 31.7.2014. 3. That on 31.7.2014 when the applicant alongwith his counsel came in the court and found that his cases are not listed in the cause list dated 31.7.2014. 4. That the applicant and his counsel contacted the Ahlmad of the court and enquired about his cases, who had informed the applicant that their cases were listed for 24.5.2014 and same were dismissed in default for none appearance of the applicant as well as counsel. 5. That the absence of the applicant or his counsel on 24.05.2014 was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons and circumstances stated above.” A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that no details of other seven applications seeking restitution were mentioned in the restoration application(s). Neither any Photostat copy of the daily dairy maintained by learned counsel representing the petition before the Courts below at Panchkula was appended with the restoration application; nor even photocopy of the brief of learned counsel having noted 31.07.2014 as the date of hearing was attached. Even no order dated 31.03.2014 passed in other seven lar applications which as per petitioner That earlier the case was fixed for 29.3.2014 and adjourned to 24.5.2014 for consideration on the application filed by the applicant. But unfortunately the counsel of the applicant noted the date as 31.7.2014 as the similar cases were also pending in the court and were fixed for That on 31.7.2014 when the applicant alongwith his counsel came in the court and found that his cases are not listed in the cause list dated That the applicant and his counsel contacted the Ahlmad of the court and enquired about his cases, who had informed the applicant that their cases were listed for 24.5.2014 and same were dismissed in default for none appearance of the t as well as counsel. That the absence of the applicant or his counsel on 24.05.2014 was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons and circumstances stated above.” A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that no details of other seven applications seeking restitution were mentioned in the . Neither any Photostat copy of the daily dairy maintained by learned counsel representing the petition before the Courts below at Panchkula was appended with the restoration application; nor even photocopy of the brief of learned counsel having noted 31.07.2014 as the date of hearing was attached. Even no order dated 31.03.2014 passed in other seven as per petitioner were adjourned to That earlier the case was fixed for 29.3.2014 and adjourned to 24.5.2014 for consideration on the application filed by the applicant. But noted the date as 31.7.2014 as the similar cases were also pending in the court and were fixed for That on 31.7.2014 when the applicant alongwith his counsel came in the court and found that his cases are not listed in the cause list dated That the applicant and his counsel contacted the Ahlmad of the court and enquired about his cases, who had informed the applicant that their cases were listed for 24.5.2014 and same were dismissed in default for none appearance of the That the absence of the applicant or his counsel on 24.05.2014 was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons and A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that no details of other seven applications seeking restitution were mentioned in the . Neither any Photostat copy of the daily- dairy maintained by learned counsel representing the petitioner before the Courts below at Panchkula was appended with the restoration application; nor even photocopy of the brief of learned counsel having noted 31.07.2014 as the date of hearing was attached. Even no order dated 31.03.2014 passed in other seven were adjourned to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5401- 31.07.2014 has been made part of the record so as to substantiate and support the reason expressed in the application 9. application incorrect date of hearing, at least an affidavit of the Clerk learned counsel representing the petitioner before the learned trial Court in support, should have been filed along with the the knowledge about the facts so stated in the application personally attributable to the office of learned counsel representing the petitioner before the Court below. 10. Act, 1963, the restoration application needs to be days of the order of dismissal. However, in the present case, the restitution application whereas application that too without any application preferred under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing thereof; even no cause or prayer for condonation of delay was either expressed or made in the application 11. the petitioner, wherein the factum of dismissal of applications for restitution 26 days was petitioner does not deserve -2018 (O&M) [6] 31.07.2014 has been made part of the record so as to substantiate and support the reason expressed in the application Furthermore, in case the reason expressed in the ation(s) for seeking restoration was of having noting down of incorrect date of hearing, at least an affidavit of the Clerk learned counsel representing the petitioner before the learned trial in support, should have been filed along with the the knowledge about the facts so stated in the application personally attributable to the office of learned counsel representing the petitioner before the Court below. More so, in terms of Article 122 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the restoration application needs to be days of the order of dismissal. However, in the present case, the restitution application(s) were dismissed in default on 24.05.2014; whereas application(s) for restoration that too without any application preferred under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing ; even no cause or prayer for condonation of delay was either expressed or made in the application (s) Be that as it may, in view the casual approach adopted by the petitioner, wherein the factum of dismissal of applications for restitution admittedly came to its notice on 31.07.2024 and 26 days was still taken for the purpose of filing of petitioner does not deserve any benefit 31.07.2014 has been made part of the record so as to substantiate and support the reason expressed in the application(s) for restoration. Furthermore, in case the reason expressed in the for seeking restoration was of having noting down of incorrect date of hearing, at least an affidavit of the Clerk to the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the learned trial in support, should have been filed along with the application, as the knowledge about the facts so stated in the application(s) was personally attributable to the office of learned counsel representing the petitioner before the Court below. More so, in terms of Article 122 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the restoration application needs to be preferred within 30 days of the order of dismissal. However, in the present case, the dismissed in default on 24.05.2014; for restoration were filed on 26.08.2014 and that too without any application preferred under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing ; even no cause or prayer for condonation of delay was either (s) for restoration itself. Be that as it may, in view the casual approach adopted by the petitioner, wherein the factum of dismissal of applications for notice on 31.07.2024 and a period of taken for the purpose of filing of the restoration, the benefit on the point of equity as well. 31.07.2014 has been made part of the record so as to substantiate for restoration. Furthermore, in case the reason expressed in the for seeking restoration was of having noting down of to the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the learned trial application, as was personally attributable to the office of learned counsel representing More so, in terms of Article 122 of the Indian Limitation preferred within 30 days of the order of dismissal. However, in the present case, the dismissed in default on 24.05.2014; on 26.08.2014 and that too without any application preferred under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing ; even no cause or prayer for condonation of delay was either Be that as it may, in view the casual approach adopted by the petitioner, wherein the factum of dismissal of applications for a period of restoration, the as well. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5401- Moreover, no litigant can be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law. 12. impugned order dated 16.04.2018 ( District Judge, Panchkula; and circumstances, calls for no interference sufficient cause being made out for restoration, petitions 13. disposed of. 19.08.2025 sanjay -2018 (O&M) [7] Moreover, no litigant can be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of As such in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 16.04.2018 (P- District Judge, Panchkula; being legal and and circumstances, calls for no interference sufficient cause being made out for restoration, being devoid of merits, are therefore, dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 (HARKESH Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Moreover, no litigant can be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of As such in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the -4) passed by learned Additional legal and equitable in the given facts and circumstances, calls for no interference especially when no sufficient cause being made out for restoration, the present revision therefore, dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No Moreover, no litigant can be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of As such in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the 4) passed by learned Additional facts ially when no the present revision Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.29 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document