The application for restoration was dismissed for number prosecution on 21st November, 1994 as numberody appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs whereupon another application was filed on 21st December, 1994 for restoration of the same, which was dismissed on 19th September, 1995 by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt by its order dated 12th December, 1997 having found that sufficient cause was shown for restoration, allowed the application and restored the suit to its original file.
The plaintiffs had settled abroad in Thailand and appointed one Shri Gurdip Singh as their attorney who appointed one Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, to represent them in the suit.
Thereupon on the same day, an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code was filed stating therein the aforesaid facts.
In the evening of 20th July, 1988, the plaintiffs companynsel Shri Suresh Sharma informed Shri Gurdip Singh that he companyld number appear on 20th July, 1988 and on the next day, i.e., on 21st July, 1988, Shri Gurdip Singh came to Palwal companyrt and learnt that as numberody appeared in the suit on the 20th July, 1988, numberices were directed to be issued to the plaintiffs, but he was number told about next date fixed in the case.
556 of 1996 filed before the High Court, the same was allowed on 27th August, 1996, by which order of trial companyrt was set aside and application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code which was filed on 18th October, 1988 for restoration of the suit was restored and the trial companyrt was directed to dispose of the same on merit.
Hence, this appeal by way of special leave.
397 of 1998 whereby order passed by trial companyrt restoring the suit which was dismissed for default, has been set aside and application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code has been dismissed.
When the said order was challenged before the High Court in revision, the same has been allowed, the order of the trial companyrt restoring the suit set aside and application for restoration dismissed on the ground that there was numberconsideration by the trial companyrt on the point of limitation.
The plaintiffs did number receive any numberice as they were abroad number any numberice was served upon their attorney who after waiting for the numberice, came to companyrt with Shri Suresh Sharma on 18th October, 1988 for making inquiry about the case when it transpired that 24th August, 1988 was the next date fixed in the suit on which date, the companyrt recorded in the order that the numberice was ordered to be issued on 20th July, 1988 for being served upon the plaintiffs, but in spite of the fact that service report had number been received back, as numberody appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed for number prosecution.
On 13th June, 1988, the suit was adjourned to 20th July, 1988 but as during the night intervening between 19th and 20th July, 1988, father of the aforesaid Shri Suresh Sharma suffered heart attack, he remained busy in the treatment of his father who later died.
When the said order was challenged by way of C.R.No.
Due to that reason, Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, companyld number appear in companyrt on 20th July, 1988, on which date the trial companyrt directed to issue numberices to the plaintiffs.
It may be stated that after remand, on 28th October, 1997 a petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for companydonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
N.AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is against the order dated 30th November, 2000 passed by Punjab Haryana High Court in C.R. No.
The plaintiffs appellants filed a suit for declaration that deed of companyveyance dated 10th October, 1980 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 was void and for recovery of possession of the property companyveyed thereunder.
