The court emphasized the necessity of a communication system for litigants to prevent delays in justice, allowing the restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Order

1. Instant Civil Restoration Application is preferred by appellant-applicant to restore S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 334/2013 which was dismissed on 03.05.2023 in pursuant to order dated 17.04.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

2. Office has pointed out a delay of 594 days in filing the instant restoration application. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed for condonation of dealy in filing restoration of appeal on ground that the appellant-applicant has filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the Trial Court and same was decreed but later First Appellate Court has reversed the findings. He further submits that the appellants-applicants were not aware about the order passed by this Court on 17.04.2023 which resulted into dismissal of second appeal. He further submits that this is a case filed by landlord and in case matter is not restored then the appellant-landlord have to face serious repercussions as the judgment would operate as res judicata. He also submits that appellant-applicant has obtained decree from the Trial Court but due to erroneous approach of the Appellate Court, the decree was reversed.

3. Heard learned counsel for applicant and perused the entire material placed on record.

4. A civil suit for eviction was filed by plaintiff Ramdev Sharma for eviction and arrears of rent. His legal heirs (all four females) were substituted, during pendency of civil suit after his death. The suit was filed on the ground of default, alternative accommodation, bona fide and reasonable need and dilapidated condition of house. Learned Trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction and also for arrears of rent and First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of defendants-tenants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved from the reversal of findings, a second appeal was preferred by appellant-landlord, in year 2013.

5. It appears that the counsel for appellant remained absent on 17.04.2023. Mr. Ravikant Sharma was counsel for appellants and due to negligence adopted by the counsel for appellant in filing notices resulted into dismissal of this appeal on 03.05.2023. A perusal clearly indicate that the defendants were not served as the summon were returned with the report that the defendants were out of station. Thereafter, notices were not issued by the Office.

6. Considering the circumstances of the case, I am of firm view that there has to be a system whereby the litigant is required to be informed about outcome of the case on daily basis. The e- Committee has proposed information by delivering SMS, as soon as the proceeding of the case is over on scheduled date but despite efforts by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, we were not able to persuade the counsels to share and inform about mobile number and e-mail-ids of the litigants so that he/she may be directly communicated by system through automated SMS. Herein, we are also at fault and still we are In-Charge of helm of affairs, particularly not able to inculcate discipline for proper use of information technology for end user (litigant). We have to introduce a system like KYL (know Your Litgant) in line as that of KYC, adopted by banks to update our database.

7. Having considered the plight of litigants who are unaware about his or her case and same was dismissed only on account that the counsel has neither appeared nor filed PF-notices for re- issue of summon. On earlier occasion, a managed report came on record with unserved notices. Looking to the fault of the system an urgent intervention is required and for that purpose the only option is to place the suggestion before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court.

8. Herein, there is a delay of 594 days in filing the restoration application. The respondents were not present on date of dismissal of second appeal, therefore, it is not necessary to serve upon them to consider this restoration application. The proceedings indicate that during pendency of 10 year