R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 4.11.1998 passed by District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in an arbitration matter award was made rule of the court by the trial Court against the present petitioner, which filed Civil Appeal No. 17T of 3.1.1985 titled F.C.I. v. Arvinder Kaur and others. The appeal was dismissed in default on 23.9.1986. It is claimed that the appeal was fixed for 23.9.1986 but on that date the local Bar at Patiala observed strike and the counsel for the petitioner did not appear due to strike. The petitioner was not aware of the fact of strike by the lawyers and the appeal was dismissed in default. It is claimed that the absence of the counsel and the petitioner was not intentional. With these averments prayer was made for restoration of the appeal to its original number. Notice of the application was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The respondents denied that the Bar at Patiala was on strike on 23.9.1986. It was further denied that Shri J.K. Puri, Advocate participated in the strike. Moreover, the strike, if any, does not constitute sufficient cause for restoration of appeal. It was also pleaded by the respondents that Shri Gian Chand Garg and Shri Jagdish Kumar Garg were not authorised to file the application. With this defence the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the application. The following issues were framed for the disposal of the application :- "1. Whether application for re-admission of the appeal is filed by a competent person ? OPA 2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for re-admission of the appeal ? OPA 3. Relief." The parties were given the opportunity to lead evidence and all the issues were decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Resultantly, the application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. Not satisfied with the said order, the present revision.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.;