Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Longjam Bijoy Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Keisham Irabot Singh & Ors. - Respondents
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 40 of 2014 with CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 48 of 2015
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Restoration of Suit - Civil Procedure Code - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Sufficient Cause, Delay Condonation, Restoration of Suit - G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others [(2000) 3 SCC 54], Smt. Lachi Tewari and others v. Director of Land Records and others [1984 (Supp) SCC 431], Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770], N. Balaji v. Virendra Singh and others AIR 2005 SC 1638 = (2004) 8 SCC 312, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 - The court discussed the scope of 'sufficient cause' in the context of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and emphasized the need to show bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' by demonstrating that the mistake of counsel, if any, should be condoned. The court highlighted the importance of not penalizing a defendant for the lax and careless prosecution of the case by the plaintiff. The judgment also emphasized that laws of procedure are meant to regulate and aid the object of substantial and real justice and not to foreclose an adjudication on the merits of substantial rights of citizens under personal, property, and other laws.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed seeking declaration of title in relation to homestead land, cancellation of mutation, and permanent injunction. The suit faced multiple dismissals and restoration attempts due to non-prosecution and technical lapses. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed applications for restoration, which were dismissed by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit had remained practically frozen since its filing in 2006, and the restoration applications were defective on several technical grounds. The Court noted the laxity on the part of the plaintiffs and their legal counsel in pursuing the litigation, and concluded that there were no grounds to show further indulgence to the petitioners. Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed.
Issues: Non-prosecution of the suit, technical lapses in restoration applications, and the conduct of the plaintiffs and their legal counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to show bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance, and highlighted the importance of not penalizing a defendant for the lax and careless prosecution of the case by the plaintiff. The judgment also underscored that laws of procedure are meant to regulate and aid the object of substantial and real justice.
Final Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Original Suit No. 24 of 2006, renumbered as Original Suit No. 51 of 2011, on the file of the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Manipur East, was filed on 06.11.2006. This suit was filed by Longjam Bijoy Singh, Longjam Ibohal Singh and Longjam Brojendro Singh against Keisham Irabot Singh and Lairikyengbam (N) Tourangbam (O) Babikarani @ Veda Devi, seeking declaration of their title in relation to the suit schedule homestead land; for cancellation of mutation; and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or otherwise causing injury in relation to the suit schedule land. The suit schedule land is an extent of .0486 hectares in Patta No. 42/490(old)/767(new) in Dag No. 6039 situated at Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai, Imphal.
The written statement was filed by the defendants in the suit on 16.02.2007. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs in Judl. Misc. Case No. 148 of 2008 was rejected by the Trial Court on 30.06.2008. Issues were framed by the Trial Court on 16.08.2008. Thereafter, no steps seem to have been taken for commencing the trial and the suit itself came to be dismissed on 30.06.2010 for non-prosecution. The restoration petition in Judl. Misc. Case No. 154 of 2010 filed on 29.07.2010 was allowed on payment of costs, vide order dated 03.03.2011. The suit was again dismissed for default on 08.11.2011 and was once again restored on 31.12.2011 on payment of costs.
2. While so, Longjam Bijoy Singh, the first plaintiff, died on 08.03.2012. His legal representatives, viz., his widow, 2 sons and 2 daughters, filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012 seeking to be brought on record. This application was filed on 20.04.2012. However, it was dismissed on 27.04.2012 for non-appearance. On the same day, the suit was again dismissed for default.
Judl. Misc. Case No. 117 of 2012 was filed on 23.05.2012 for restoration of the suit. This application was dismissed for default on 17.01.2013. Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2013 was filed on 19.01.2013 seeking restoration of Judl. Misc. Case No. 117 of 2012.
As regards the dismissal of the LR application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012, applications in Judl. Misc. Case Nos. 479 and 480 of 2013 were filed by the widow and children of late Longjam Bijoy Singh only on 09.07.2013. By way of Judl. Misc. Case No. 479 of 2013, they sought condonation of the delay on their part in filing a restoration application. Significantly, the number of days delay was not mentioned in the application. Judl. Misc. Case No. 480 of 2013 was filed by them for restoration of the LR application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012.
3. On 13.06.2014, the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. I, Manipur East, dismissed all three miscellaneous cases. The widow and children of late Longjam Bijoy Singh, the first plaintiff, filed CRP No. 40 of 2014 assailing the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in Judl. Misc. Case Nos.479 and 480 of 2013. Longjam Ibohal Singh and Longjam Brojendro Singh, the other two plaintiffs in the suit, filed CRP No. 48 of 2015 against the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2013.
4. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in both the CRPs; and Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the respondents therein.
5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, would argue that the Trial Court ought not to have been hyper-technical in its approach while dealing with the subject applications. He would assert that procedure is only the hand-maid of justice and not its mistress and, therefore, the Trial Court should have been more lenient while considering the miscellaneous cases. He would further assert that the failure of the learned counsel to be present on time is a mistake attributable to him and that the parties should not be punished for such a mistake on the part of their counsel. He would place reliance on case law in support of his contentions.
In G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others [
The judgment emphasizes the need to demonstrate bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance, and highlights the elastic nature of the expression 'sufficient cause' to enable the cou....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The condonation of delay in restoring a civil suit for specific performance must be based on sufficient cause, and an exorbitant and inordinate delay without such cause can lead to the quashing of th....
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
An assignee of the rights and benefits of the deceased plaintiff's legal heirs is a proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the suit proceedings under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
Courts can consider merits alongside delay in restoration petitions under CPC to promote justice over technicalities.
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
