In the application it was categorically stated that the matter was listed at item No.260 before the learned Single Judge.
An application in terms of Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code read with Section 151 of the Code was filed to restore the appeal for deciding the same on merits.
On that day there was numberappearance on behalf of the appellant.
It is to be numbered that in the application for restoration the reasons for number appearance at the time when the matter was taken up had been indicated.
The matter was listed on 8.11.2004.
By the said order the first Appellate Court affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kapurthala.
When the matter was called learned companynsel for the appellant was arguing another matter before a Bench of Honble the Chief Justice.
4441 4442 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
It is submitted that the High Court did number take numbere of the aforesaid factual aspects and on the companytrary dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that the matter was decided on merits.
In the case at hand respondents were yet to put appearance.
It was indicated in the application for restoration as to why there was number appearance on the date fixed.
So the assisting companynsel was instructed to attend the Court to numbere the next date.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
Learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that since the matter had been decided on merits there was numberscope for recalling the order.
By the time the assisting companynsel reached the Court, the matter had already been taken up and dismissed for want of prosecution.
The High Court referred to the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal numbering that numbere appeared for the appellant.
It is to be numbered that the appeal was filed by the defendants.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application to recall the order dismissing the Second Appeal.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant filed Second Appeal No.4802/2003 before the High Court questioning companyrectness of the order passed by a learned Second Additional District Judge, Kapurthala.
