JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Challenge herein is to an order passed in an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No. (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2000) 294 of 2008. The petitioner (since dead) was plaintiff in the trial Court. He sought the declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 004-48 entered in Khewat No. 9 min, Khatauni No. 11 min, bearing Khasra Nos. 3187/1902/1 and 3209/1946 situated in Up-Mohal Nichla Kotla (Kotla Kalan), Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Mutation No. 3052 sanctioned in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein consequent upon order dated 27.10.1983 passed by learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in case No. 249/83 is stated to be illegal, hence not binding on his right, title and interest in the suit land. 2. Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte on 1.3.2002. An application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order. The said application was at the stage of consideration and listed on 24.5.2007 for producing evidence by the petitioner (plaintiff in the trial Court). The plaintiff, however, failed to put in appearance on that day and as such, the suit was dismissed in default. It is thereafter the application which has been dismissed by the order under challenge came to be filed for restoration of the suit. 3. The application was resisted and contested on behalf of the respondents-defendants. 4. The petitioner (since dead) has produced his own affidavit in evidence. He was also cross-examined. The application though was claimed to be filed within the period of limitation i.e. from the date of knowledge. The same, however, was time barred because the suit was dismissed in default on 24.5.2007 whereas the application filed after a period over one year i.e. on 31.10.2008. The application should have been filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the suit was dismissed in default. The same, however, was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC which provision meant for setting aside ex-parte decree. Anyhow, filing of the application under wrong provision has not been given any weightage nor taken to dismiss the application, however, the application has been dismissed being time barred. 5. Mr. The same, however, was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC which provision meant for setting aside ex-parte decree. Anyhow, filing of the application under wrong provision has not been given any weightage nor taken to dismiss the application, however, the application has been dismissed being time barred. 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel representing the petitioner (plaintiff) has contended that the death of the wife of deceased petitioner Sher Singh was the cause of delay as occurred in filing the application for restoration of suit. Learned trial Court however, has not considered the ground so raised as plausible and has dismissed the application. 6. As noticed herein above, the only explanation as has come on record is that the wife of the deceased petitioner had expired and it is for this reason he failed to file application for restoration of suit within the period of limitation. No doubt, his wife was expired, however, on 2.1.2006. The suit was dismissed in default after a period over one year on 24.5.2007. The application CMA No. 294 of 2008 was filed thereafter on 31.10.2008 again after a period over one year. Nothing has come on record that after the death of his wife the mental shock and agony he suffered was of such a nature that he was not able to do anything for such a long time viz a period over two years. Therefore, the mere statement that he failed to file application for restoration of the suit on account of being under shock is neither plausible nor reasonable. Learned trial Court, therefore, has rightly rejected the same. 7. It is worth mentioning that the expiry of the period prescribed for taking steps to get the suit restored to its original number and file has resulted in a valuable right in favour of respondents-defendants. Such right cannot be taken away by allowing the application at a belated stage on the only plea that the petitioner-plaintiff was under shock on account of death of his wife that too after a year from the day when the suit was dismissed in default. On merits also, the chances of the petitioner-plaintiff to succeed in the suit are bleak as learned Counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff also admit that the suit land now stands sold to some one else, of course, according to him not whole of the suit land but a part thereof. 8. On merits also, the chances of the petitioner-plaintiff to succeed in the suit are bleak as learned Counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff also admit that the suit land now stands sold to some one else, of course, according to him not whole of the suit land but a part thereof. 8. In the totality of the circumstances, no case warranting interference of this Court is made out and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending applications, if any, also dismissed.