B. N. Agrawal, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is against the order dated 30th November, 2000 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in C. R. No. 397 of 1998 whereby order passed by trial Court 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.
(3.) The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration that deed of conveyance 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 conveyed thereunder. 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. 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. Due to that reason, Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, could not appear in Court on 20th July, 1988, on which date the trial Court directed to issue notices to the plaintiffs. In the evening of 20th July, 1988, the plaintiffs' counsel Shri Suresh Sharma informed Shri Gurdip Singh that he could not appear on 20th July, 1988 and on the next day, i.e. on 21st July, 1988, Shri Gurdip Singh came to Palwal Court and learnt that as nobody appeared in the suit on the 20th July, 1988, notices were directed to be issued to the plaintiffs, but he was not told about next date fixed in the case. The plaintiffs did not receive and notice as they were abroad nor any notice was served upon their attorney who after waiting for the notice, came to Court 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 Court recorded in the order that the notice 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 not been received back, as nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed for non prosecution. Thereupon on the same day, an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code was filed stating therein the aforesaid facts.;