Back
SANJAY DHAR
Mohammad Rafiq Khan – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The instant revision petition is directed against order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, whereby application of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) for restoration of the suit has been allowed.
2. It appears that respondent No.1/plaintiff Bank had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,44,945.80 against the petitioners and proforma respondents before the learned trial court. It also appears that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff bank stopped appearing in the case and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.08.2014.
3. The plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit before the trial court on 29th March, 2016, on the ground that the counsel for the plaintiff bank had wrongly diarized the date of hearing in his records, as a result of which he could not appear on the date of hearing. It was also averred in the application that the counsel for the plaintiff was not correctly informed by his associate about the court proceedings, as a result of which he remained ignorant about the same. In the month of December, 2015, counsel for the plaintiff is stated to have acquired the knowledge
(1) Restoration of suit – Provisions contained in Order XXII of CPC are applicable to proceedings relating to restoration of suit which falls under Order IX of Code.(2) Right to sue – Separate suits ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the provisions of Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings relating to restoration of a suit falling under Or....
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 court invoked the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the restoration application and held that the application for restoration was maintainable under Order IX Rule 4 CPC.
Procedural rules should not obstruct the substantive rights of parties, allowing for restoration of appeals in the interest of justice.
Point of Law – Restoration application with delay was also rightly rejected by the Court-below after having been pending for 5 years. That no sufficient cause was explained by the petitioners for con....
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow restoration of suits for substantial justice without a formal application for condonation of delay.
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.
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.
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
