Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., P.N. Puri, Rakesh Chopra, Abhishek Puri, Ms. Reeta Dewan Puri, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Ms. Suresh Kumari, Ms. Divya Mishra, S.L. Aneja, Sanjay Kapur, Rajiv Kapur, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Advs.

Key Points: - The judgment discusses whether an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1 (c)/(d) from orders in miscellaneous proceedings governed by Order 9, Rule 9/Rule 13, citing Full Bench and various High Court decisions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that rights of appeal can extend to orders rejecting an application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 13, when such rejection is within the scope of "rejecting an application" under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) CPC, per Full Bench reasoning (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the maintainability of an appeal where the appellants filed a restoration application after the death of the defendant and whether the restoration petition is itself within Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 141 CPC (!) (!) (!) . - It concludes that the appeal filed against the order dated 23.12.2005 was maintainable under Order 43, Rule 1 (c) CPC and that the High Court erred in holding otherwise, placing emphasis on Section 141 CPC making Order 9 applicable to miscellaneous proceedings and the applicability of Order 43 to such appeals (!) (!) . - The decision discusses limitation and condonation for restoration applications under Article 122 and 137 of the Limitation Act, in the context of restoration petitions filed by the legal heirs after death of Ranjit Singh (!) (!) . - The matter is remitted to proceed with the restoration application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, with directions to decide within three months (!) . - It references that Section 141 CPC makes CPC procedures for suits applicable to miscellaneous proceedings "as far as it can be made applicable" (!) (!) (!) . - It cites Ram Chandra Aggarwal and other cases establishing miscellaneous proceedings are governed by CPC procedures including right of appeal, though substantive right to appeal must be statutory (!) (!) . - The final outcome: appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; restoration matter to be decided on merits by Trial Court as directed by Appellate Court (!) .

What is the scope of right of appeal from orders under Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC in a miscellaneous proceeding under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC?

What is the maintainability of an appeal from an order rejecting restoration of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC when the subsequent restoration application seeks recall of that order?

What are the conditions under which an appeal lies from an order dismissing an application for restoration of a dismissed application in default, in light of Section 141 CPC and Full Bench precedents?