CR-945-2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 Madan Mohan Singh (Dead) through his LR Anita Salaria Gian Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-17055 learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, is taken on record as Annexure P CR-945-2017 1. under Article 227 of the impugned order dated Additional as ‘Madan Mohan Singh plaintiff’s application for restoration of aforesaid appeal 2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Madan Mohan Singh (Dead) through his LR Anita Salaria Versus Gian Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for Mr. APS Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 17055-CII-2017 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Copy of judgment and decree dated learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, is taken on record as Annexure P-5. 2017 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugned order dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure P District Judge, Gurdarpur, in Civil Appeal Madan Mohan Singh vs. Gian Singh Etc. application for restoration of aforesaid appeal IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-945-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Madan Mohan Singh (Dead) through his LR Anita Salaria ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for Mr. APS Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Application is allowed, as prayed for. Copy of judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, is taken on record as The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff Constitution of India, for setting aside the 20.07.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Appeal No. 89/2005, titled Gian Singh Etc.’ whereby the petitioner- application for restoration of aforesaid appeal was dismissed. 19.02.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, is taken on record as by the plaintiff setting aside the passed by the learned No. 89/2005, titled RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-945-2017 (O&M) 2. learned Lower Appellate Co father of the petitioner was an old man of 74/75 years age and was suffering from properly instruct his counsel in the had expired on 20.04.2013 because of prolonged ailment. could not file the application for restoration of the appeal in time due to his ailment and infirm health. petition be aside. 3. vehemently opposes the and submits that there is unexplained delay of more than 18 months in filing the application for restoration of the appeal by the petitioner. Even the application for restoration of the main appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appended with the present revision petit father of the petitioner was unable to instruct not constitute any cause for condonation of such an inordinate and extraordinary delay of 18 months in filing the restoration application. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. 4. parties. I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. I find no 2017 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner learned Lower Appellate Court had not appreciated the fact that father of the petitioner was an old man of 74/75 years age and was suffering from various old age-related diseases properly instruct his counsel in the Court below expired on 20.04.2013 because of prolonged ailment. could not file the application for restoration of the appeal in time due to his ailment and infirm health. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the impugned orders of the courts below be set Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is unexplained delay of more than 18 months in e application for restoration of the appeal by the petitioner. Even the application for restoration of the main appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appended with the present revision petition. All that has been stated is that father of the petitioner was unable to instruct not constitute any cause for condonation of such an inordinate and extraordinary delay of 18 months in filing the restoration application. ordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. No other argument has been raised by I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the not appreciated the fact that the late father of the petitioner was an old man of 74/75 years age and was diseases. As such, he could not ourt below. Father of the petitioner expired on 20.04.2013 because of prolonged ailment. As such, he could not file the application for restoration of the appeal in time due to It is accordingly prayed that the present impugned orders of the courts below be set learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is unexplained delay of more than 18 months in e application for restoration of the appeal by the petitioner. Even the application for restoration of the main appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the said application have not been ion. All that has been stated is that father of the petitioner was unable to instruct his counsel. The same shall not constitute any cause for condonation of such an inordinate and extraordinary delay of 18 months in filing the restoration application. ordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. that the the late father of the petitioner was an old man of 74/75 years age and was he could not petitioner As such, he could not file the application for restoration of the appeal in time due to It is accordingly prayed that the present impugned orders of the courts below be set learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is unexplained delay of more than 18 months in e application for restoration of the appeal by the petitioner. Even the application for restoration of the main appeal as well as the application have not been ion. All that has been stated is that same shall not constitute any cause for condonation of such an inordinate and extraordinary delay of 18 months in filing the restoration application. ordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of counsel for the I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-945-2017 (O&M) 5. filed a suit for declaration vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005 (Annexure P aggrieved, the father of the petitioner had filed dated 02.06.2005 (Annexure P Singh Etc.’ along with an application for condonation delay As father of the petitioner had failed to put in appearance before the learned Lower Appellate Court, the prosecution vide had filed an application for restoration of the said The said application for restoration of the main appeal was accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay order dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure P dismissed. 6. condonation of delay was that about his illness and was unable to attend the Court’ petitioner that his father could not file the application for restoration within limitation as he was gravely ill; and had subsequently expired on 20.4.2013. remotely indicate any illness of his father. appears to be doubtful as the Civil Appeal was dismissed on 12.5.2010; restoration application was filed on petitioner expired three years thereafter on 20.4.2013. 2017 (O&M) -3- Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner had suit for declaration which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005 (Annexure P aggrieved, the father of the petitioner had filed 02.06.2005 (Annexure P-1), titled as ‘ ’ against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005 along with an application for condonation delay As father of the petitioner had failed to put in appearance before the learned Lower Appellate Court, the said appeal prosecution vide order dated 12.5.2010. Thereafter, father of the petitioner had filed an application for restoration of the said The said application for restoration of the main appeal was accompanied ith an application seeking condonation of delay order dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure P-2), the said applications have been dismissed. Admittedly, the only reason cited in the application for condonation of delay was that ‘the applicant about his illness and was unable to attend the Court’ petitioner that his father could not file the application for restoration within limitation as he was gravely ill; and had subsequently expired on 4.2013. Firstly, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to indicate any illness of his father. appears to be doubtful as the Civil Appeal was dismissed on 12.5.2010; restoration application was filed on 7.11.2011; whereas father of the petitioner expired three years thereafter on 20.4.2013. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner had which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005 (Annexure P-5). Being aggrieved, the father of the petitioner had filed Civil Appeal No. 89/2005 , titled as ‘Madan Mohan Singh vs. Gian against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005 along with an application for condonation delay in filing the said appeal. As father of the petitioner had failed to put in appearance before the d appeal was dismissed for non- Thereafter, father of the petitioner had filed an application for restoration of the said appeal on 07.11.2011. The said application for restoration of the main appeal was accompanied ith an application seeking condonation of delay. Vide the impugned 2), the said applications have been he only reason cited in the application for ‘the applicant could not inform his counsel about his illness and was unable to attend the Court’. It is the case of the petitioner that his father could not file the application for restoration within limitation as he was gravely ill; and had subsequently expired on nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to indicate any illness of his father. The assertion of the petitioner appears to be doubtful as the Civil Appeal was dismissed on 12.5.2010; 7.11.2011; whereas father of the petitioner expired three years thereafter on 20.4.2013. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner had which was dismissed by the learned trial Court 5). Being against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.02.2005 in filing the said appeal. As father of the petitioner had failed to put in appearance before the Thereafter, father of the petitioner 07.11.2011. The said application for restoration of the main appeal was accompanied Vide the impugned 2), the said applications have been he only reason cited in the application for inform his counsel It is the case of the petitioner that his father could not file the application for restoration within limitation as he was gravely ill; and had subsequently expired on nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to The assertion of the petitioner appears to be doubtful as the Civil Appeal was dismissed on 12.5.2010; 7.11.2011; whereas father of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-945-2017 (O&M) 7. ground for condonation of such an extraordinary and inordinate delay of more than 18 months law, is to be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal order. However, no same could not be filed within the limitation. 8. to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the petitioner. has been furnished by the and unexplained delay application. delay in filing the the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. explanation furnished by the petitioner pursued with utmost casualness. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. grave injustice will caused to the respondent in case the matter is restored at this belated stage. case of Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi), Law Finder Doc Id # 2017 (O&M) -4- Even otherwise, needless to say the same constitutes no ground for condonation of such an extraordinary and inordinate delay of more than 18 months in filing the application for restoration, which, as per is to be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal order. However, no cogent explanation was given by the petitioner as to why the same could not be filed within the limitation. It is well-settled proposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the . In the present case, no cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for condonation of such an i and unexplained delay of more than 18 months application. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate in filing the restoration application the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. explanation furnished by the petitioner show pursued with utmost casualness. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to e his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. grave injustice will caused to the respondent in case the matter is restored at this belated stage. It has been recently held by the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., Law Finder Doc Id # 887148, that: 11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant a 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 eedless to say the same constitutes no ground for condonation of such an extraordinary and inordinate delay of application for restoration, which, as per is to be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal order. explanation was given by the petitioner as to why the same could not be filed within the limitation. roposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the o cogent reason or plausible explanation for condonation of such an inordinate of more than 18 months in filing the restoration , condonation of such an inordinate/extraordinary would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. The shows that the matter has been pursued with utmost casualness. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to e his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. It is my view that grave injustice will caused to the respondent in case the matter is restored recently held by the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., that: 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 eedless to say the same constitutes no ground for condonation of such an extraordinary and inordinate delay of application for restoration, which, as per is to be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal order. explanation was given by the petitioner as to why the roposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the o cogent reason or plausible explanation nordinate restoration /extraordinary would tantamount to declaring e that the matter has been pursued with utmost casualness. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to this Court to It is my view that grave injustice will caused to the respondent in case the matter is restored recently held by the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and bout 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 RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-945-2017 (O&M) 9. by the Delhi High Court. In t reasons given by the petitioner for delay in filing the restoration application, do not constitute sufficient cause. 10. to exercise the 11. 12. 24.07.2025 rishu 2017 (O&M) -5- the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit 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 been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic 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 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 the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the consequences.” I am in complete agreement with the above view expressed by the Delhi High Court. In the present case, as already noticed above, the reasons given by the petitioner for delay in filing the restoration application, do not constitute sufficient cause. In view of the discussion above to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit 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 ts. 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 rustic 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 pursue his case 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 does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the I am in complete agreement with the above view expressed he present case, as already noticed above, the reasons given by the petitioner for delay in filing the restoration application, do not constitute sufficient cause. bove, I find no ground is made out revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit 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 ts. Putting the entire blame upon the unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic 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 pursue his case 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 does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the I am in complete agreement with the above view expressed he present case, as already noticed above, the reasons given by the petitioner for delay in filing the restoration no ground is made out RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.