IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 33 of 2011

PRAN SINGH

Versus

STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.P. Singh - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER civil revision before the High Court, which was registered as C.R.No.215/1998. By order dated 20/08/2002, the civil revision was dismissed with liberty to applicant that if he so desires, then he can file an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. Thereafter, applicant approached the Civil Court under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay on the ground that applicant had approached the High Court by filing a civil revision and the said civil revision was dismissed on 20/08/2022 and accordingly, an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was filed on 03/09/2022. It was prayed that applicant was bonafidely and with due diligence was prosecuting his cause before the forum having no jurisdiction, therefore, the said period is liable to be condoned. The application filed by applicant for condonation of delay alongwith an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was rejected by st order dated 19/08/2010 passed by I Civil Judge, Class-I, Ashoknagar, District Ashoknagar in MJC No.08/2010 mainly on the ground that applicant has not produced the copy of the order passed by High Court, and it was also observed that it is not known as to when the revision was filed before the High Court

This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against

st

order dated 25/01/2011 passed by I ADJ, Ashoknagar in MJC No.22/2010 by which the Appellate Court has affirmed by order dated 19/08/2010 passed

st

by I Civil Judge, Class-I, Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No.08/2010.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are

that applicant filed a suit in the year 1985, which was registered as Civil Suit No.179-A/1988. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for 10 years and ultimately, on 22/02/1995, the case was listed for recording of plaintiff evidence. For the next two years and nine months, plaintiff did not lead any evidence and ultimately, by order dated 10/11/1997, the prayer for adjournment was refused, and the civil suit was dismissed in absence of any

evidence.

3. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the applicant preferred a

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicant preferred miscellaneous s t appeal before I Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar, which was registered as miscellaneous civil appeal No.22/2010. By impugned order dated 25/01/2011, the said miscellaneous appeal has been dismissed on the ground that applicant has failed to make out any sufficient cause for restoration of civil suit. It is made clear that the Appellate Court had not endorsed the findings recorded by the Trial Court with regard to delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC, but the appeal was decided on the basis of conduct of applicant in the trial.

5. Being aggrieved by order dated 25/01/2011, the present civil revision has been filed. By referring to order dated 20/08/2002 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision No.215/1998, it is submitted that applicant had approached the High Court against order dated 10/11/1997 and his revision was dismissed by High Court on the ground that applicant should have approached the trial Court in the light of judgment passed by the High Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Nandram (deceased) Through LRs and Others reported in 2001(1) MPJR 35. It is submitted that on the date of presentation of civil revision, civil revision was maintainable in the light of judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhpal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1997 JLJ 147 and Madanlal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Jai Narayan Gendalal Jatav reported in AIR 1972 MP 8. Thus, initial presentation of civil revision before this