Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Lakhindra Mahto, Son of Late Meghnath Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Pachi Devi, Wife of Late Jhalku Mahto – Respondent
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 Limita
The court upheld the trial court's restoration of a suit despite procedural missteps, emphasizing that implicit condonation of delay suffices for legal validity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
An appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(t) is not maintainable for a restoration application dismissed due to limitation as it does not involve a decision on the merits.
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow restoration of suits for substantial justice without a formal application for condonation of delay.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
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
