MP High Court Clarifies: No Direct Appeal Against Dismissal in Default, Restoration is the Correct Path

Jabalpur, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on civil procedure, has held that a miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is not maintainable against an order dismissing an application in default. The bench, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Himanshu Joshi, clarified that the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to first seek restoration of the application before the same trial court.

The decision dismisses an appeal filed by Smt. Sitarani, reinforcing a crucial procedural step that must be followed when an application to set aside an ex-parte decree is dismissed due to non-appearance.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a property possession suit filed by Dal Singh (Respondent) against Smt. Sitarani (Appellant). After filing her written submission, Smt. Sitarani failed to appear in subsequent court proceedings, leading to an ex-parte judgment against her.

To challenge this, she filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. However, this application (M.J.C. No. 05/2009) was itself dismissed on 20.10.2010 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Damoh, because her counsel was absent. Instead of seeking to restore this dismissed application, the appellant directly filed the present miscellaneous appeal before the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Appellant's Counsel (Shri Sandeep Koshta): Argued that the trial court wrongly dismissed the application in default and should have issued a notice in the interest of justice, considering the counsel for the respondent was also absent. He contended that the trial court failed to properly consider the reasons for the non-appearance.

• Respondent's Counsel (Shri Anuvad Shrivastava): Supported the trial court's order, opposing the appeal and its maintainability.

Court's Legal Analysis and Precedents

Justice Himanshu Joshi framed the central legal question: "whether an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC lies against an order dismissing an application under Order IX Rule 13 in default."

The Court observed that the trial court's dismissal was not on the merits of the case but was a procedural order passed due to the non-appearance of both parties' counsel.

The judgment heavily relied on a Supreme Court decision in Jaswant Singh & others Vs. Parkash Kaur & Another (2018) 12 SCC 249 , which clarified the interplay between Section 141 and Order IX of the CPC. The Supreme Court established that when an application for restoration (under Order IX Rule 9) is rejected, an appeal against that rejection is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(c).

However, Justice Joshi distinguished the current case. The appellant had not filed a restoration application. Her original application under Order IX Rule 13 was dismissed for non-prosecution, and she directly appealed that dismissal. The Court found this to be a premature and incorrect procedural step.

Pivotal Excerpt from the Judgment

The Court's reasoning was succinctly captured in its order:

> "On careful reading of the aforesaid pronouncement, an order dismissing an application for want of prosecution is not directly appealable before this Court. The proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is to seek restoration of the application before the same court by invoking Order IX Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC."

The Court further noted:

> "The present appeal has been preferred bypassing the appropriate remedy. Since the order impugned is purely procedural in nature... the appeal is squarely barred, both on the language of the statute as well as on settled principles of law."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the miscellaneous appeal, holding it to be not maintainable. However, it granted liberty to the appellant, Smt. Sitarani, to "move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking restoration of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, strictly in accordance with law."

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for legal practitioners about the precise procedural remedies available under the CPC. It underscores that a dismissal for non-prosecution does not automatically grant a right of appeal; the litigant must first exhaust the remedy of restoration before the court that passed the dismissal order.