2025:HHC:39169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 94 of 2019 Date of decision 19.11.2025. Naginder Singh & another ...Petitioners. Versus Raj Kumar & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘Code’), the petitioners/plaintiffs have taken exception to order dated 22.5.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. in an application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code. 2. Indisputably, the plaintiffs had instituted a plaint in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Anni on 13.6.2012. The power of attorney was signed by the plaintiffs in favour of S/Sh. J.R. Kainthala, Sudesh Kainthla and Govind Negi, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Advocates. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27.5.2013 for default in appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code for restoration of the suit in January, 2018, which was taken up by the learned trial Court for the first time on 18.1.2018. 4. It was averred in the application for restoration of suit that the matter had been assigned by Sh. J.R. Kainthla, Advocate for conduct before the learned Sub Judge, Anni-II to Sh. Govind Negi, Advocate, who had appeared in the suit, for the plaintiffs, before learned Sub Judge, Anni on 26.12.2012 and again on 21.2.2013. The said counsel had not appeared on 27.5.2013, resulting in dismissal of the suit in default. As per petitioners, Sh. Govind Negi, Advocate had not informed about his non appearance and the fate of the case either to the applicants or Sh. J.R. Kainthla, Advocate. It was further averred that the applicants came to know about the dismissal of the suit and then applied for certified copy of order dated 27.5.2013. On receipt of certified copy of the order, application for restoration of the suit was immediately filed before the learned trial Court. -3- 5. The application was contested by the respondents/defendants. The averments made therein were denied. The applicants were alleged to be negligent and careless in their conduct. It was stated that the applicants were residents of the nearby area and it was highly improbable that they had not inquired about the fate of the case for such a long period. 6. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit, vide impugned order. It has been held that the plaintiffs had not been able to show sufficient cause and in addition, the reason assigned by the plaintiffs have been disbelieved. 7. Admittedly, the application filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit was not within time. There was huge delay of more than four years in filing the application, still neither any application for condonation of delay was filed nor a prayer to that effect was made in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code. On this count alone, no indulgence can be shown to the plaintiffs by this Court. 8. Further, the learned counsel Sh. Govind Negi, has been blamed firstly for non appearing in the matter on -4- 27.5.2013 and then for not informing either Sh. J.R. Kainthla, Advocate or the plaintiffs about the fate of the case. Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the plea raised by the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs are believed on such plea, it will amount to deciding the issue of fact in absence of Sh. Govind Negi, Advocate. The plaintiffs could have supported their version with the affidavit of statement of Sh. Govind Negi, Advocate, however, there is no explanation for such an omission. There is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs had even sought any explanation from Sh. Govind Negi, Advocate. 9. It is hard to believe that the plaintiffs waited for more than four years to know about the fate of their case. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has pointed out towards the important issues raised in the suit, which in my view will not help the cause of plaintiffs in the instant petition, as they were required to be more vigilant, keeping in view the alleged importance of suit. 10. It can also be noticed that in the application, filed for restoration of the suit, the plaintiffs have not given particulars as to the date on which they acquired the -5- knowledge and the source from which such knowledge was acquired. 11. It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that since the suit was at initial stage, no prejudice as such would be caused to the non-applicants/defendants by restoration of the suit and in addition, the defendants can be compensated by way of costs. As noticed above, the plaintiffs have been found to be grossly negligent. Their plea also does not appear to be bonafide and for such reason, no indulgence can be shown to them. 12. In result, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 19th November, 2025 Judge (kck)