REKHA MITTAL,J. - (1.) By invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present petition directs challenge against orders dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial court and dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat whereby suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed on 6.11.2009, application for restoration of the suit was dismissed on 5.2.2013 and appeal preferred against order dated 6.11.2009 was dismissed on 23.7.2014 respectively.
(2.) The petitioners filed a suit for declaration to assail judgment and decree dated 5.11.1986 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Panipat in case 'Duli Chand and others v. Hukmi and others' being null and void ab initio and not binding upon rights of the plaintiffs in regard to land, detailed in head note of the plaint. Simultaneously, relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing nature of the suit property by raising construction or otherwise was also prayed for. The suit was instituted in the year 2002 but the same was dismissed on 6.11.2009 and a relevant extract from the impugned order reads as follows:- "Waited sufficiently. None appeared for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. However, the perusal of the file reveals that after framing of the issues on 8.4.2005 the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs and thereafter several effective opportunities have been granted for evidence of the plaintiff. Even today in the morning the request was made by the learned counsel that he would place the witness in the witness box after lunch but it is already 3.30 p.m. none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. The case is already included in the list of 200 oldest cases identified to be disposed of within current year as per to the order of the Hon'ble High Court. No ground for adjournment made out. Since there is no evidence on record to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the suit of the plaintiffs must fail and it is accordingly ordered. Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed for want of evidence. File, after needful, be consigned to the record."
(3.) The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit but the same was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat and a relevant extract therefrom, reads as follows:- "It is relevant to mention that admittedly, the suit in question had been dismissed on 6.11.2009 and the present application was moved on 7.12.2009. Thus, the application is barred by law of Limitation, as per which, the period of filing such like application is one month. It is also relevant to mention that on 6.11.2009, as per zimni order of the said date, the suit was dismissed for want of appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs as also for want of any evidence in support of the case set up by them. Thus, only an appeal in the matter would be, if so, maintainable. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application in hand is dismissed." ;