1. Petitioner sought restoration of appeal dismissed for default due to counsel's non-appearance; delay of 123 days. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1283
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Kabak Bhatt, Son of Shri Kabak Taka – Petitioner
Versus
Ms Biki Shapiong, Daughter of Shri Biki Nido – Respondent
CRP/48 of 2026
Decided On : 07-08-2026
Important Points
A litigant who engages a lawyer should not suffer for the lawyer's default; courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning delay, requiring explanation only for the date of dismissal.
Subject
Civil Law - Restoration of Appeal / Condonation of Delay
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 19, Section 151, Section 104, Order 43 Rule 1(t) - Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 - Section 15 - Restoration of appeal dismissed for default - Condonation of delay - Principles governing negligence of counsel - Justice-oriented approach.
(B) Civil Procedure - Restoration of appeal - Default of counsel - Litigant should not suffer for lapse of advocate - A party who engages a lawyer and remains confident that the lawyer will look after his interest cannot be held accountable for the lawyer’s failure to appear - Court must examine sufficient cause with a justice-oriented approach - Satisfactory explanation required only for the date on which the matter was dismissed for non‑prosecution, not for previous defaults that were already condoned. (Paras 15‑17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife who acquired two plots of land. After separation, the petitioner obtained Land Possession Certificates in 2018, which were later cancelled by the Additional Deputy Commissioner following a complaint by the respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition against that cancellation. Meanwhile, the respondent obtained an order from the village authority (Gaun Baura) granting her full rights over the land. The petitioner appealed that order under Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia. The Civil Judge initially stayed the village authority’s order. However, on 09‑08‑2024, the appeal was dismissed for default due to the absence of the petitioner’s counsel on three consecutive dates. The interim stay was vacated. The petitioner, claiming he was unaware of the dismissal until the respondent started construction, filed IA No.7/2025 under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for restoration and condonation of 123 days’ delay. The Civil Judge dismissed that IA on 04‑08‑2025. The petitioner’s miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(t) was dismissed by the District Judge on 18‑05‑2026. Hence, the present revision under Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The High Court set aside the orders of the Civil Judge and the District Judge, condoned the delay of 123 days, and restored the original appeal to file. The Court held that the lower courts had erred by considering the previous defaults of the petitioner’s counsel, whereas only the default on the date of dismissal needed explanation. Relying on Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788, Jonah Lalrempuia 2025 Supreme (Gau) 700, and Neelav Chaliha 2018 (4) GLT 1184, the Court reiterated that a litigant who has done everything in his power should not suffer due to the negligence of his advocate. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Papumpare, and fixed the next appearance date before the Civil Judge on 07‑09‑2026.
Issues: The main issues were whether the courts below properly exercised their discretion in refusing to condone the delay and restore the appeal, and whether the petitioner could be penalised for the default of his counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when an appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the advocate’s absence, the party is not at fault and the delay must be condoned if sufficient cause is shown for the date of dismissal. The lower courts erred by examining prior defaults that had already been condoned. A justice‑oriented approach mandates that litigants should not bear the consequences of their counsel’s negligence. Result : Civil revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; delay condoned; appeal restored; costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed on petitioner.
(B) Civil Procedure - Restoration of appeal - Default of counsel - Litigant should not suffer for lapse of advocate - A party who engages a lawyer and remains confident that the lawyer will look after his interest cannot be held accountable for the lawyer’s failure to appear - Court must examine sufficient cause with a justice-oriented approach - Satisfactory explanation required only for the date on which the matter was dismissed for non‑prosecution, not for previous defaults that were already condoned. (Paras 15‑17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife who acquired two plots of land. After separation, the petitioner obtained Land Possession Certificates in 2018, which were later cancelled by the Additional Deputy Commissioner following a complaint by the respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition against that cancellation. Meanwhile, the respondent obtained an order from the village authority (Gaun Baura) granting her full rights over the land. The petitioner appealed that order under Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia. The Civil Judge initially stayed the village authority’s order. However, on 09‑08‑2024, the appeal was dismissed for default due to the absence of the petitioner’s counsel on three consecutive dates. The interim stay was vacated. The petitioner, claiming he was unaware of the dismissal until the respondent started construction, filed IA No.7/2025 under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for restoration and condonation of 123 days’ delay. The Civil Judge dismissed that IA on 04‑08‑2025. The petitioner’s miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(t) was dismissed by the District Judge on 18‑05‑2026. Hence, the present revision under Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The High Court set aside the orders of the Civil Judge and the District Judge, condoned the delay of 123 days, and restored the original appeal to file. The Court held that the lower courts had erred by considering the previous defaults of the petitioner’s counsel, whereas only the default on the date of dismissal needed explanation. Relying on Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788, Jonah Lalrempuia 2025 Supreme (Gau) 700, and Neelav Chaliha 2018 (4) GLT 1184, the Court reiterated that a litigant who has done everything in his power should not suffer due to the negligence of his advocate. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Papumpare, and fixed the next appearance date before the Civil Judge on 07‑09‑2026.
Issues: The main issues were whether the courts below properly exercised their discretion in refusing to condone the delay and restore the appeal, and whether the petitioner could be penalised for the default of his counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when an appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the advocate’s absence, the party is not at fault and the delay must be condoned if sufficient cause is shown for the date of dismissal. The lower courts erred by examining prior defaults that had already been condoned. A justice‑oriented approach mandates that litigants should not bear the consequences of their counsel’s negligence. Result : Civil revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; delay condoned; appeal restored; costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed on petitioner.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Geken Jini, Advocate
For the Respondent: Tony Pertin, T. Mize, H.K. Jamoh
For the Petitioner:Geken Jini, Advocate
For the Respondent: Tony Pertin, T. Mize, H.K. Jamoh
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued litigant should not suffer for counsel's default; respondent opposed restoration. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Revision allowed; orders set aside; appeal restored; delay condoned; costs imposed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Should a litigant suffer for the default or negligence of their counsel?
No, a litigant who has done everything in their power should not suffer for their counsel's default; the court must adopt a justice-oriented approach. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. Is satisfactory explanation required only for the date of dismissal for non-prosecution?
Yes, only the date of dismissal requires explanation; previous conduct of the party on earlier dates is not relevant for restoration. (Para 17 )
6. Should courts adopt a justice-oriented approach when considering condonation of delay caused by counsel's default?
Yes, courts must consider sufficient cause with a justice-oriented approach, especially when the default is attributable to the counsel, not the litigant. (Para 16 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Heard Mr. T.Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. Invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the civil revisional petitioner herein, namely, Shri Kabak Bhatt, has assailed the judgment and order dated 18-05-2026 passed by the Learned District Judge, Yupia, whereby Civil (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 2025 against order dated 04-08-2025 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia was dismissed.
3. The facts in brief projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner and the sole respondent were husband and wife and during their stay together, acquired a plot of land measuring 49,066 Sq. mtrs and another plot of land measuring 47,961 Sq. mtrs at Hollongi at Balijan Circle. Subsequently, in 2010, the petitioner and the respondent separated and even thereafter, the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the land and he also constructed some house and boundary wall. It is further stated by the petitioner that in 2018, he successfully obtained a Land Possession Certificate vide LPC No. ADC/BJN/LPC-03/2014 dated 21-07-2018 for the plot measuring 47,961 Sq. mtrs and another Land Possession Certificate being LPC No. ADC/BJN/LPC-03/2014 for the other plot measuring 49,066 Sq. mtrs.
4. It is stated by the petitioner that upon the petitioner obtaining the land possession certificates, the respondent filed a complaint before the Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Balijan alleging that the petitioner had fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the land possession certificates and pursuant thereof, the learned ADC, Balijan, vide Order dated 28-09-2023 recalled and cancelled the land possession certificates issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 504/2023.
5. It is further stated by the petitioner that to his shock and surprise, he received the Mel notice dated 06-10-2023 from the Gaun Baura of Hollongi and another notice on 24-10-2023 which were issued based on a complaint made by the respondent. By the said notices, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Gaun Baura, Hollongi to adjudicate the dispute regarding the ownership of the land in question. Thereupon, the petitioner informed the Gaun Baura, Hollongi about the pendency of the matter in this Court.
6. However, the Gaun Baura, Hollongi in the absence of the petitioner passed order dated 24-10-2023, granting full rights ownership to the respondent over the disputed land. Aggrieved by the said order of the Gaun Baura, Hollongi dated 24-10-2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia which was registered and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 5/2023. In the said appeal, he has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24-10-2023 passed by the village authority of Hollongi.
7. It is stated that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia vide Order dated 04-12-2023 was pleased to stay the impugned Order dated 24-10-2023 passed by the village authority and directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the disputed land during the pendency of the appeal.
8. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 19-03-2024, 14-05-2024 and 09-08-2024 and due to absence of the petitioner's counsel on those dates, the matter came to be dismissed for default vide order dated 09-08-2024 and the interim Order dated 04-12-2023 was vacated.
9. The petitioner has contended that the counsel who was looking after the matter never informed him about the dismissal of the matter and he came to know about it when the respondents started undertaking some construction activities on the disputed land and having been left with no option, he filed an interlocutory application registered as IA No.07/2025 under Order 41 Rule 19
