Ravinder Kaur vs Bimla Rani and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 20251.CII of 2010

Allowed as prayed for.

CR No. 5066 of 2010

Ravinder Kaur (respondent No. 2 in the election petition) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 31.5.2010, Annexure P/6, passed by the Election Tribunal, Ferozepur thereby restoring the election petition filed by Bimla Rani respondent No. 1 herein.

The election petition was dismissed in default on 21.7.2009 vide order Annexure P/1 after calling the case three times at 11.30 AM, 12.15 PM and 1.00 PM. Respondent No. 1 herein (election petitioner) moved application Annexure P/2 on 21.7.2009 itself at 1.50 PM alleging that she came to the court at 1.10 PM and learnt that the case had been dismissed-in-default. The said application has been allowed by the Election Tribunal by impugned order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Election Tribunal before dismissing the election petition in default even sent the Peon to the seat of Counsel for the election petition twice (as mentioned in the order passed at 11.30 AM and 1.00 PM but still Counsel for the petitioner did not turn up and therefore, the election petition was rightly dismissed in default and there was no sufficient ground for restoration of the election petition.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. As noticed hereinabove, the restoration application Annexure P/2 was moved immediately on the same day on which the election petition was dismissed in default. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient ground for restoration of the election petition. On the contrary, the petitioner herein who is respondent No. 2 in the election petition had already been proceeded ex parte and even none was present on her behalf when the election petition was dismissed in default. Moreover, courts are always liberal in restoring the cases which are dismissed in default unless there is some exceptional circumstance to deny restoration of the case. In the instant case, restoration application was moved on the same day on which the election petition was dismissed in default. Consequently, the election petition has been rightly restored by the Election Tribunal and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Election Tribunal warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.