AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J
The petitioners have challenged order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu whereby, the application for restoration of the restoration application filed by the respondent before the trial court has been allowed.
It appears that the respondent had filed a suit before the trial court against the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.05.2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application for restoration of the suit on 18.06.2013. The said application was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.03.2016.
The ground urged by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial court was that the counsel, who was appearing on his behalf before the trial court had suddenly shifted to Delhi and he did not know about these developments as a result of which, he did not appear before the court and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the plea taken by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial court is contrary to the actual facts. In these circumstances, learned trial court has rightly exercised his jurisdiction and restored the restoration application to its original number. Even otherwise, the courts in the matters of restoration of cases dismissed for non-prosecution generally taken a lenient view, keeping in view the object of deciding the claims and counter claims of parties on merits, instead of dismissing the same for non-prosecution on technical grounds. The learned trial court has not committed any illegality or impropriety while passing the impugned order.
Viewed in the above context, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial court. The revision petition lacks merit and as such, the same is dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to learned trial court for information.