Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4162
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
RAMPRAKASH AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
HARDAYAL AND OTHERS – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION No. 112 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore
For the Respondents: Shri P.C.Chandil, Shri S.S. Kushwaha
Courts must adopt a liberal approach in condoning minor delays in legal proceedings to ensure cases are adjudicated on merits rather than technicalities.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Applicants filed a suit for declaration and injunction dismissed for non-appearance. An application for restoration citing bereavement was filed beyond limitation. Courts dismissed the application due to delay, despite recognizing sufficient cause for non-appearance. (Paras 2-9)
(B) Courts must adopt a liberal view in condoning minor delays to facilitate merits-based decisions rather than technical dismissals, especially where reasons are accepted. The delay of ten days should have been condoned. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
Applicants’ civil suit was dismissed due to non-appearance linked to a family bereavement. An application to restore the suit was filed late but cited valid reasons for non-appearance.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate and Trial Courts erred in rejecting the application for restoration due to minor delay, which was condoned and the suit restored.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing was properly explained and if it merited a liberal interpretation by the courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that short delays should generally be overlooked to allow cases to be heard on their merits while indicating potential compensation for respondents in case of acceptance of the application.
Result: Revision allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of suit for non-appearance (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 112 of 2014 RAMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Versus HARDAYAL AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri P.C.Chandil - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.
ORDER This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against st the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by 1 Additional District Judge, Joura, District Morena in MCA No.1/2014 as well as order dated 29.11.2013 passed st by 1 Civil Judge, Class-I, Joura, District Morena in MJC No.9/2012.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that applicants have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction which was registered as Civil Suit No.11A/2012. The case was fixed for recording of evidence on 08.11.2012. Neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel appeared on the said date and accordingly, suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC was filed for restoration of civil suit on the ground that on account of bereavement in Signature Not Verified the family of plaintiffs, they could not appear on 08.11.2012. Since application for restoration was filed beyond period of limitation and therefore, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed. By order dated 29.11.2013, Trial Court rejected the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC.
3 . Being aggrieved by order passed by Trial Court, applicants preferred MCA which too has been dismissed by Appellate Court by order dated 28.07.2014 passed in MCA No.01/2014.
4 . By referring to the findings recorded by Appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that Appellate Court has specifically held that there was a valid cause for applicants for their non-appearance on 08.11.2012 but as the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC was barred by ten days, therefore, appeal was dismissed.
5. It is submitted that question of delay has to be considered liberally.
Once court below has come to the conclusion that there was a sufficient cause for applicants for their non-appearance before Trial Court on 08.11.2012, then delay of ten days should have been condoned by adopting liberal view because every attempt should be made to decide the lis on merits and not on technical issues.
6 . Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that in order to condone the delay, there must be some sufficient cause and since reasons assigned by applicants for condonation of delay were not borne out of the record, therefore, application for condonation of delay was rightly rejected.
Signature Not Verified
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. According to counsel for parties, delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC was only of ten days. Once court below had come to the conclusion that there was a sufficient cause for applicants for their non-appearance on 08.11.2012, then in the considered opinion of this Court that short delay of ten days should have been condoned by Court below in order to facilitate the parties to get their lis decided on merits. Every attempt should be made to decide the dispute on merits instead of throwing it away on technical grounds, specifically when delay was only of ten days. However, if Appellate Court was of the view that delay has not been explained properly, then it could have compensated the respondents by awarding compensation. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that Appellate Court as well as Trial Court committed material illegality by rejecting application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC.
st
9. Accordingly, order dated 29.11.2013 passed by 1 Civil Judge, Class-I, Joura, District Morena in MJC No.9/2012 and order st dated
