The Court emphasized that the delay in filing the restoration application was excessive and that negligence of the lawyers and plaintiffs was not a valid ground for restoration. The Court also highlighted the importance of considering settlements between parties and the implications of ex parte decrees.

1. As per the affidavit of service, the postal article containing notices for the respondent No. 3 was delivered to the addressee on 04.03.2017. Hence, service on respondent No. 3 is taken as sufficient. None is present for the respondent No. 3 but the contesting respondents are duly represented by the learned Senior Advocate Shri ND Chullai with Shri A. Pakyntein.

2. With the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, this revision petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.

3. This revision petition under Rule 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Court) Order, 2014 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 as passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2011 whereby, the learned Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong has set aside the order dated 15.09.2011 as passed by the learned Judge, Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong for restoration of the title suit filed by the present petitioners, being T.S. No. 11 of 1993.

4. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the present petitioners had filed the aforesaid title suit [T.S. No. 11 of 1993] for declaration and consequential relief’s, while claiming that themselves and their clan, commonly known as Lyngdoh Shiji clan, were the genuine owners having right, title and interest over the land described in Schedule A and B to the plaint. The title suit so filed by the petitioners was dismissed for default of appearance on 27.08.2008. It appears that the application seeking restoration of the suit was filed on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs after an inordinate delay of about 2 years and 7 months. This application seeking restoration of the suit was considered and allowed by the learned Judge, Subordinate District Council Court by way of the order dated 15.09.2011, inter alia, with the observations that most of the plaintiffs in the suit were older in age, were residing in far interior places, and plaintiff No. 5 had expired on 05.05.2005 during the pendency of the suit; and if their lawyers did not pursue the case diligently, the plaintiffs should not be left to suffer. The learned Judge, while expressing the view that even the excessive delay in filing the application could be condoned, allowed the application and set aside the order dated 27.08.2008 so as to restore the suit to the file while directing that the plaintiffs would take necessary steps for substitution of the legal representatives.

5. As against the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2011, two appeals were filed before the learned Judge, District Council Court by different sets of defendants: one being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2011 by the respondents No. 1 and 2 of the present petition; and the other one being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2011 by 71 other defendants. It is noticed from the record that on 19.05.2014, after hearing, the learned Judge, District Council Court reserved the judgment in Appeal No. 14 of 2011; but ultimately delivered the judgment only on 23.03.2016 and allowed the appeal so filed by the respondents No.1 and 2. In the meantime, the other appeal bearing No. 16 of 2011, arising out of the same impugned order dated 15.09.2011, was disposed of by the same learned Judge, District Council Court on 19.09.2014 in view of the settlement between the parties. Significantly, before such disposal of Appeal No. 16 of 2011, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a fresh title suit, being T.S. No. 8 of 2012 in the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong and this suit was decreed ex parte on 17.02.2014. Before dilating on various facets of the matter emanating from disposal of Appeal No. 16 of 2011 as also the said title suit bearing No. 8 of 2012, appropriate it would be to take note of the considerations of the learned Judge, District Council Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 fo