-
by Admin
10 December 2025 4:39 PM
In a recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of restoration applications. The court's observation in the judgment, "The petitioner is wasting the precious time of the Court by moving applications time and again but not pursuing the same," formed the core of the decision.
The case revolved around the petitioner, Darshan Kaur, who had faced an exparte judgment and decree dated 23.08.2014. Kaur had filed multiple applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking restoration of her case. However, her previous applications were dismissed in default.
Kaur alleged that her counsel had assured her that she need not appear in court for every hearing, but her applications were dismissed due to her counsel's negligence. She further claimed that her health issues and the COVID-19 pandemic had hindered her ability to follow up on her case.
Justice Namit Kumar, in his verdict, noted that Kaur had failed to provide a plausible explanation for her repeated non-appearance before the Trial Court. He emphasized that the matter had been pending since 2012, and Kaur's actions were causing unnecessary delays in the legal proceedings.
The judge concluded that Kaur's conduct in filing multiple applications without actively pursuing them was unacceptable. Consequently, the court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it.
This judgment underscores the importance of diligence and responsibility in legal proceedings, highlighting that the courts should not be burdened with repetitive applications that lack genuine cause.
Date of Decision: 29.09.2023
Darshan Kaur vs Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha Singh and others
