NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 171 of 2024 Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Son of Late Sohan Singh Chhabra, aged about 69 years, Resident of Padampur Road, Basna, Mukam Post, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, Mukam Post, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, Sub Post Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh –--- Petitioner Versus

1. Lal Singh Chhabra, Son of Late Sohan Singh Chhabra, aged about 71 years, Resident of Jagdishpur Road, Basna, Mukam Post, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, Sub Post Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2. Ikbal Singh, Son of Lal Singh, aged about 49 years, Resident of Basna, Mukam Post, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, Sub Post Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhatisgarh.

3. Ranbir Singh, Son of Lal Singh, aged about 40 years, Resident of Basna, Mukam Post, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, Sub Post Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhatisgarh.

4. Dharam Pal Singh, Son of Sohan Singh Chhabra, aged about 57 years, Resident of Padampur Road, Jay Bharat Hotel, Basna Mukam Post, Tehsil Basna, Sub division Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondents : None present.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

05.03.2024

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Basna, District Mahasamund whereby application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 9, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of civil suit No. 2-A/2022 (Jagjit Singh Vs. Lal Singh & others) has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner / plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction & partition etc., against respondents No. 1 to 4/defendants, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 2-A/2022 (Jagjit Singh Vs. Lal Singh Chhabra & others). He submits that the trial was commenced and the aforesaid civil suit was listed for framing of issues on 10.4.2023. On that date, the case was taken-up for hearing at 1 pm, but neither the petitioner/ plaintiff, who was appearing through his counsel, appeared in person nor his original counsel appeared, as he had gone to attend the hearing of some other case at Saraipali and his junior was also busy for some personal work, therefore, they could not attend the hearing of the case, hence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution on subsequent hearing at 3.50 pm on the same day. It is further submitted that just after three days of dismissal of his civil suit for want of prosecution, petitioner / plaintiff preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of aforesaid civil suit i.e. on 13.04.2023, despite that learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application for restoration by accepting the objection raised by respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4 to the effect that junior Advocate to the original Advocate namely Satish Sedaria had entered his appearance in some other cases at Civil Court, Mahasamund, therefore, reasons assigned by petitioner /plaintiff for non-appearance on 10.04.2023 is not found to be just & proper.

2.1. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that filing of restoration application only within three days itself shows that the plaintiff/petitioner is ready to get decided his civil suit on merits. It is contended that the reasons assigned by petitioner / plaintiff in restoration application for non-appearance on the date of hearing i.e. 10.04.2023 are itself sufficient to restore the case for hearing and disposal on merits in accordance with law. He would f