Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Upendra Prasad Gupta, son of Late Ayodhya Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Satendra Kumar Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Baban Prasad, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Palamau in Civil Misc. Case No.10 of 2024, whereby, the restoration petition dated 20.02.2024 filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of Original Suit No.68 of 2017 has been allowed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted a suit being Original Suit No.68 of 2017 for declaration that three sale deeds do not contain true expression of conscious mind of Late Ayodhya Prasad and the said sale deeds were obtained by playing fraud and the same did not convey right, title, interest and possession upon the defendants, which are liable to be cancelled under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act and also for permanent injunction
Notice is required in restoration proceedings when the defendant has previously appeared in the suit, ensuring fair opportunity to all parties.
Court must provide notice to all parties before restoring a dismissed lawsuit, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair hearing.
Notice must be issued to opposing parties in restoration proceedings to uphold natural justice, even if they did not appear in previous hearings.
Restoration of a partition suit without notice to a necessary party violates procedural fairness, rendering the order invalid.
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.
An ex-parte decree cannot stand if there is no valid proof of service of notice to the parties involved, emphasizing fairness and due process in civil proceedings.
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow restoration of suits for substantial justice without a formal application for condonation of delay.
The mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court had the requisite jurisdiction.
Judicial discretion under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C. is crucial, and a liberal approach should be taken to allow restoration of suits for effective adjudication, especially when circumstances affecting n....
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
