IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 134 CR-2968-2025 Date of Decision.:19.05.2025 Subhash Chander @ Subhash Sachdeva …..Pe22oner Vs. Beant Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.06.2010 was filed by three plainffs, who included the present peoner Subhash Chander, against Beant Singh and Others (respondent herein), through a common counsel. Later on, plainff Nos.1 and 2 had withdrawn the suit. On 19.11.2013, nobody put in appearance on behalf of plainff No.3 i.e. peoner herein, due to which the suit was dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 CPC vide order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P-3). 2. Applicaon for restoraon of the suit was moved by the said peoner- plainff No.3 in April, 2015, along with an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act to condone the delay. The applicaon was opposed by the respondents. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares on the applicaon was recorded and ulmately, the trial Court dismissed the applicaon to condone the delay as well as the applicaon for restoraon of the suit vide order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-9). Appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by learned Addional District Judge, Moga vide his order dated 24.03.2025 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.20 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2968-2025 -2- (Annexure P-11). 3. The aforesaid orders have been assailed by the peoner in the present revision peon. It is contended by learned counsel that inially the peoner was shown as a proforma defendant. Later on, memo of pares was amended and he was impleaded as plainff No.3. The wri=en statement had been filed by the defendants and the suit was being pursued by plainff Nos.1 and 2, who withdrew the suit. The peoner could not come to know about the said fact and the suit was dismissed in default on 19.11.2013. He approached this Court by filing civil revision No.1709/2015 but the same was decided on 11.03.2015 by granng him liberty to exhaust remedy by filing the applicaon under Order IX Rule 9 CPC before the trial Court and with that observaon the peon was dismissed by this Court vide Annexure P-4. He then moved the necessary applicaon under Order IX Rule 9 CPC along with applicaon for condonaon of the delay and the same has been dismissed by both the Courts below without considering the factual aspects of the fact that peoner was never informed prior to dismissal of the suit in default. No noce was given to his counsel or to him before dismissing the suit and so, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. AAer hearing learned counsel for the peoner at considerable length, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision. 5. It will be relevant to reproduce the observaons made by the Appellate Court in its order dated 24.03.2025, while dismissing the appeal of the peoner against the order dated 29.11.2018 of the trial Court, whereby his applicaon under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was dismissed for restoraon of the suit. These read as under: “16. The applicant (plainff No. 3) has prayed for restoraon of the suit tled as Subhash Chander Vs. Beant Singh and others with the plea that he had no knowledge of the order dated 19.11.2013, of dismissal of the suit in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.20 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2968-2025 -3- queson in default and he came to know of the said order only on 12.02.2015 when he visited the office of his counsel. 17. Thus, clearly there is delay of more than 14 months in instuon of the applicaon for restoraon of the suit in the ma=er in hand and both the issues i.e. No. 1 and 2, menoned above, having been interlinked and interconnected with each other, have been rightly adjudicated upon jointly by the Trial Court in order to avoid the repeon of discussion. 18. Then, in support of his claim for restoraon of the suit, the applicant (plainff No. 3) has not produced any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on record. Except for the self-serving oral statement of the applicant (plainff No. 3), there is no other oral or documentary evidence, what so ever, on record to establish that the applicant (plainff No. 3) in fact intended to pursue the ma=er, but he was precluded from pursuing the suit by the act of his co-plainffs and he remained under the impression that the suit was being pursued by them. 19. Then, the Trial Court has rightly referred to the legal maxims i.e. vigilanbus non dormienbus jura subveniunt which means the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent and vigilanbus non dormienbus aequitas succurrit which means equity comes to the aid of those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. 20. It is not the case of the applicant (plainff No. 3) that he was precluded or prohibited because of any reasonable cause from vising the court or even his counsel to ascertain the stage/ proceedings of the suit for such a long period of more than 14 months from the dismissal of the suit in default. There is also no evidence on record in this regard by the applicant (plainff No. 3) that there was any plausible reason precluding or prohibing him from vising the Court or even his counsel to ascertain stage/ proceedings of the suit. Rather, when subjected to cross-examinaon, applicant (Plainff No. 3) clearly states that his house is situated at a distance of only 2 kilometer form the court as well as from the house of Sh. Vinay Kashyap Advocate, whom he had consulted at the me of pendency of the civil suit. This proves fatal to the claim of the applicant (plainff No. 3) for restoraon of the suit. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.20 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2968-2025 -4- 21. Then, this is also not the case of the applicant (plainff No. 3) that because of any medical illness or some other exigency, beyond his control, he could not pursue the suit properly. Rather, when subjected to cross- examinaon, applicant (plainff No. 3) clearly states that he remained in full mental senses and good physical health during the said period. 22. Then, it is also not the case of the applicant (plainff No. 3) that he was totally illiterate or uneducated to such an extent that he was unable to understand the consequences of his absence from the proceedings of the Court. Under such circumstances, by merely pleading that he was under the bona-fide belief that the suit was being pursued by his co-plainffs, applicant (plainff No. 3) cannot escape his responsibility of pursuing the suit to protect his own rights by himself regularly appearing in the Court. Then, in his cross- examinaon, applicant (plainff No. 3) also states that he used to talk with his counsel and counsel’s clerks through mobile phone, which means that the applicant (plainff No. 3) was regularly in touch with his counsel and his assisng staff and it is not believable that despite being in touch with his counsel and his staff, applicant (plainff No. 3) did not come to know of the dismissal of the suit in default for such a long period of more than 14 months for moving the present applicaon for restoraon of the suit. 23. Then, simply because the applicant’s co-plainffs were acvely pursuing the suit and they withdrew their part of the suit without informing the applicant (plainff No. 3), it does not in any manner absolve the applicant (plainff No. 3) of his responsibility to follow up the proceedings ll the logical conclusion. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, the applicant (plainff No. 3) was not at liberty to sleep over the enre ma=er as per his own whims and fancies without shouldering the responsibility of pursing his part of the case ll the logical end. Thus, there being no convincing reason, what so ever, having been pleaded and proved on record by the applicant (plainff No. 3) to show that why he remained dormant and inacve from 19.11.2013 i.e. the date of dismissal of the suit in default ll 12.02.2015 i.e. the date of instuon of the applicaon for restoraon, without feeling the necessity to inquire about the actual status of the suit whether from his co-plainffs or his counsel, the asseron of the applicant (plainff No. 3) for restoraon of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.20 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2968-2025 -5- suit has rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court. 24 Then, as per the plea of the applicant (plainff No. 3), he was not informed by the respondent No. 6 and 7 or his counsel about the proceedings of the suit and hence, his absence was unintenonal and the suit was liable to be restored. But, when turned up into the witness box, applicant (plainff No. 3) clearly states that it was Baljinder Singh who disclosed the factum of the dismissal of the suit to him, thereby falsifying his own plea taken in the applicaon for restoraon. Thus, the version of the applicant (plainff No. 3) does not inspire any confidence and the applicant (plainff No. 3) cannot be held entled to the relief of restoraon of the suit. 25. Then, the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the authoritave judicial pronouncement in the case tled as Lachman Dass Vs. FCI cited as 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 340 that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for giving a fresh noce to the party who is already represented by an advocate or pleader and merely by engaging a counsel, the ligant did not get an immunity from prosecung his case by appearing in the Court because it is for the ligant to have looked aAer his interest in the case by personal appearance or by ensuring the appearance of his duly instructed counsel.” 6. The aforesaid observaons made by the Appellate Court, based upon the evidence on record would not only show the delay of more than 14 months in moving the applicaon for restoraon of the suit but further the fact that no cogent grounds were given by the peoner for his absence before the trial Court. The Court rejected his applicaon for the following key reasons: I. Unexplained Delay: There was no convincing explanaon for the long delay. The applicant failed to prove that any genuine obstacles pre- vented him from following up on the suit. II. Lack of Evidence: The applicant relied solely on his own oral tes- mony without providing any credible documentary or corroborave evidence. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.20 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2968-2025 -6- III. Proximity and Access: He lived just 2 km away from the court and his lawyer's residence, and admi=ed he was in good health and regularly in contact with his counsel via mobile. Hence, his claim of ignorance about the suit’s status was unconvincing. IV. No Valid Excuse: He wasn't ill, uneducated, or misled by anyone in a way that jusfied his inacon. His plea that co-plainffs were pursu- ing the case did not relieve him of personal responsibility. V. Contradictory Statement: His claim that he wasn't informed was con- tradicted by his own admission in court that Baljinder Singh told him about the dismissal. VI. Legal Principles: The Court cited maxims emphasizing that the law helps the vigilant, not the negligent, and referred to case law (Lach- man Dass vs. FCI) which highlights a party's duty to remain acvely involved in their case. In conclusion, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the restoraon applicaon due to the applicant's negligence, lack of credible evidence, and failure to jusfy the prolonged inacon. 7. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to jusfy any interference therein. As such, holding the present peon to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 19, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.20 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document