Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) A suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner somewhere in the year 1991 was dismissed in default on 26th July, 1994. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on 13th August, 1994. Since the. application was contested by the other, side, therefore, issues, arising from .the pleadings of the parties were framed and the plaintiff -applicant was directed to lead evidence. As the petitioner failed to produce evidence despite adjournments given to her sometimes subject to payment of costs, she failed to produce the evidence as well as failed to pay the costs. Consequently, the application for restoration of the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 5th April, 1999. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this revision,
(2.) I have heard Shri Y.P. Khullar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri V.P. Khullar, learned counsel has assailed the impugned order on two grounds, first that the trial Court has not recorded any finding that the petitioner was responsible for delaying the proceedings in the matter and for the disposal of the case. Secondly, the provisions under Section 35 -B of the Code of Civil Procedure being stringent, could be taken recourse to only in the rarest of rare cases. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Devi Bai Widow of Ch. Mangha Ram v. Gur -bachana Singh and Sushila Mittal v. Shankar Lal and Anr. .
(3.) THE facts of the case in hand are, however, entirely different from those of the cases cited above. In Smt. Devi Bai's case (supra), some evidence was recorded and the same was not considered by the trial Court while dismissing the suit invoking the provisions of Section 35 -A of the Code whereas in the case in hand, not even a single witness has been examined in support of the averments contained in the application for restoration of the suit.;