Back
REKHA BORANA
Chetaniya Singh, S/o. Shri Ragunath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Maharshi Dayananad Saraswati University, through its Registrar – Respondent
ORDER :
(Rekha Borana, J.)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Misc. Case No.07/2016 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC as preferred on behalf of the petitioner plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. The facts are that the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed in default and in non-prosecution on 30.11.2013. An application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC was filed by the plaintiff on 24.02.2014 with the submission that on 30.11.2013 when the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence, he was on election duty in the MLA elections and hence, could not present himself before the Court. It was therefore prayed that the order dated 30.11.2013 be set aside.
3. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application as preferred on behalf of the plaintiff observed that the plaintiff filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief after 10 opportunities been given and then despite 14 opportunities been granted for cross-examination did not present himself before the Court. The Court further observed that even the appli
The court emphasized the necessity of considering valid reasons for a party's non-appearance in court proceedings, reinforcing the principle of justice.
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 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 ....
The court established that sufficient cause for non-appearance should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice and the right to a fair hearing.
The court has the discretion to allow a party to appear for cross-examination based on a genuine explanation for non-appearance, considering substantial rights of the parties and to do substantial ju....
The court established that 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance must be interpreted liberally, allowing for restoration of applications even after previous dismissals.
A defendant retains the right to participate in proceedings even after the rejection of an application under Order IX, Rule 7, provided they appear timely and engage with the trial process.
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
