Back
REKHA BORANA
Rajendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mangla Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rekha Borana, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.09.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2010 whereby, the application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with section 151, CPC as preferred on behalf of the plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for cancellation of gift deed as well as permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2008. In the said suit, after the issues been framed, time was granted by the learned Trial Court for plaintiff's evidence for the first time on 21.11.2009. Since then, almost 6-7 opportunities were granted including the last opportunity at a cost of Rs. 500/- however, the plaintiff's evidence could not be led and on 07.07.2010, neither any witness nor the counsel on behalf of the plaintiff appeared and hence, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.
3. For setting aside the said order of 07.07.2010, an application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with section 151, CPC was preferred on 18.09.2010. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order impugned dated 17.0
The court ruled that the concept of 'sufficient cause' in litigation should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice is served, allowing for the restoration of cases dismissed for non-prosecution.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering valid reasons for a party's non-appearance in court proceedings, reinforcing the principle of justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the requirement for the party to approach the court with ....
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
The court established that 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance must be interpreted liberally, allowing for restoration of applications even after previous dismissals.
A party must demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and file timely applications to set aside ex-parte judgments, supported by evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
