The court upheld the trial court's restoration of a suit despite procedural missteps, emphasizing that implicit condonation of delay suffices for legal validity.

JUDGMENT

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present civil revision is directed against the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2008, arising out of Title Suit No. 217 of 2006, whereby and whereunder an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties has been allowed on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid to the defendants.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order has contended that Title Suit No. 217 of 2006 was dismissed for non-filing of requisite for issuance of summons against the defendants. Therefore, the restoration application might have been filed by the plaintiff/opposite party under Order IX Rule 4 of C.P.C.instead of an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.

4. It is further submitted that admittedly the application for restoration of the suit was time barred inasmuch as the suit was dismissed on 06.10.2007 and the restoration application was filed on 10.03.2008 along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

5. It is further submitted that since the restoration application was time barred and the learned court below did not condone the delay by passing specific order with reasons as to sufficient cause preventing the plaintiffs in filing the restoration application within time, rather has passed a non-speaking order and restored the suit to its original number. Therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside. The matter requires to be remitted back for fresh decision on the restoration application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the reported judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 107

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned court below has considered the averments made in the petition filed by plaintiff along with reasons for delay in filing the restoration application as well as the petition for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioners/defendants were also provided an opportunity of hearing although he was not required to be heard because the suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and the restoration application has to be filed under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C., wherein no notice is required to be sent to the defendants. The learned court below after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the defendants, has passed a reasoned order imposing cost of Rs. 500/- on the plaintiffs and restored the suit to its original number, which suffers from no jurisdictional error.

9. In the above-mentioned circumstances, mere omission to mention in the impugned order that the delay is condoned, itself has no legal consequences and cannot be interpreted otherwise. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order, calling for any interference. This revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon judgment passed in the case of Dwarika Prasad (D) through LRs. Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828 and in the case of Davinder Pal Sehgal & Another Vs. M/s Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 156

11. I have gone through the impugned order and the citations relied upon in the light of rival submissions of the parties.

12. The essence of the matter is that the original suit was dismissed for non-filing the requisite for issuance of summons to the defendants. Admittedly the application for restoration has to be filed under Order IX Rule 4 of C.P.C., but it was filed under Order IX