The court emphasized the requirement for a speaking order and the need for the application for restoration to show sufficient cause and be within time.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. In this revision petition, brief point projected for consideration is that in the suit pending in the court of Sub-Judge/Municipal Magistrate titled Ghulam Rasool Bhat and others versus Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, on 30-11-1991, the plaintiff is reported in person and through counsel absent. However, Legal Advisor for respondents/Municipality was present and the suit seems to have been dismissed in default. Application for restoration of the suit seems to have been moved on 18-7-1994. Notices seem to have been issued to the respondents, but despite service they have not appeared. On 6-10-1994, the court of Sub-Judge has ordered the restoration of the suit to its original number by allowing the application.

3. Order dated 6-10-1994 is impugned in this revision petition and it is stated in the order under challenge that the counsel for the respondents had no other objection except that of costs and on payment of costs of Rs.30/- suit appears to have been restored to its original number. The order has been passed in exparte against the present petitioners who have preferred this revision petition.

4. In this revision petition two main objections have been projected by learned counsel for the other side:

5. Firstly that the revision petition is patently time barred and is hit by latches.

6. Secondly even if the revision petition is not allowed and the suit is not restored, but the defendants will have a recurring cause of action as because it is only a suit for injunction as defendants, present petitioners, are alleged to have been causing interference

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and persual of the records, though the revision petition is barred by limitation, but taking into account the order which has been passed by the learned Sub-Judge in a perfunctory manner without showing that there is reasonable cause for allowing such application and without having applied his mind. The order impugned should have been a speaking one as is envisaged under the relevant provisions of law.

8. It is an admitted fact that the order for restoration of a suit, dismissed in default can be restored on two counts:

i) That the application should be within time; and

ii) Sufficient/good cause is to be shown by the persons claiming restoration of a suit having been dismissed in default.

Here in the present case, I don™t find that the learned Sub-Judge had exercised a jurisdiction vested in him properly. He has not recorded his finding on that count. He has also not mentioned that the application for restoration is within time and he has suppressed that fact. He has also not mentioned in the impugned order that there is sufficient cause for restoration. So even if the revision petition is barred by limitation, but this being a court of record, cannot allow such orders to sustain while exercising powers vested in this court under section 115 of Civil PC.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed and the order impugned is quashed, meaning thereby that the parties are relegated back to the court below for agitating their grievances. Ld. trial Judge will hear the parties in the restoration application afresh and pass appropriate orders and even otherwise if the plaintiff respondent before me does not succeed in establishing a good cause for restoration of the suit to its original number, then if his cause of action is recording recurring surviving one, he can have legal advice by following other remedy, if advised. Records are sent back to the trial court and the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 1-8-1996.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document