IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Gafoor Sheikh Alias Gafur Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Bhajan Mistri Son Of Late Bishwanath Mistri – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Misc. Case No.05 of 2022 whereby the petitioner filed under Order IX Rule 3 CPC read with Order XVII Rule 2 CPC for restoration of Title Suit No.79 of 2008 has been allowed.
3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that Title Suit No.79 of 2008 was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest in which the notices have been issued upon the defendants nos.1 and 3 to 16 and they have appeared and filed their written statement and seven witnesses have been examined as well as the issue has already been framed. On 05.04.2011, the evidence of the plaintiff/O.P. first set was closed. He submits that by order dated 11.04.2022 the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution under the provisions of Order IX Rule 3 read wi
Court must provide notice to all parties before restoring a dismissed lawsuit, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair hearing.
Notice is required in restoration proceedings when the defendant has previously appeared in the suit, ensuring fair opportunity to all parties.
The court emphasized the need to provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to lead evidence, overriding procedural closure to ensure justice in light of changed circumstances.
Procedural errors should not unjustly deny parties their right to appeal when sufficient cause is shown, emphasizing the importance of justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.
The amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
Procedural laws should facilitate justice, and dismissal for non-prosecution is improper if the suit has not been admitted and notices have not been issued.
Orders against deceased parties are nullities; proper substitution of legal heirs is essential in ongoing litigation.
The court upheld the trial court's restoration of a suit despite procedural missteps, emphasizing that implicit condonation of delay suffices for legal validity.
Restoration of a partition suit without notice to a necessary party violates procedural fairness, rendering the order invalid.
A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.