IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5546 of 2018 JAWAHARLAL THR. HIS LRS. BHARATLAL AND OTHERS Versus SMT. GOMATI BAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Krishna Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri K.S. Chandel - Advocate appears on behalf of Shri G.S. Baghel -

Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.

ORDER The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the trial Court thereby rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC which was filed for restoration of the original suit.

2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that the present petitioners had filed a suit which was dismissed for want of prosecution 08.09.2009 and application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC was filed for restoration of the suit which was registered as MJC No.78 of 2010. The said MJC No.78 of 2010 was dismissed in default of appearance on 17.05.2014 and application for restoration of the MJC was filed on 09.07.2014.

3. In this manner, the application for restoration of MJC was time barred by 21 days if the limitation of 30 days is counted. The petitioner, however, filed the application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of MJC on the ground that as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for any application for which no period of limitation has been provided elsewhere in the said Act, would be 3 years whereas the respondents had contended before in trial Court that Article 122 of Schedule to Limitation Act would apply to the present case which provides limitation period of 30 days.

4. The trial Court held that limitation period of 30 days under Article 122 would apply and limitation claimed of 3 years under Article 137 would not apply and, therefore, dismissed the application for restoration of MJC being barred by limitation as no application for condonation of delay had been filed, though the delay was only of 21 days.

5. The counsel for the petitioners before this Court argued that since Article 122 of the Limitation Act provides for restoration of suit or appeal or review or revision, then the limitation would be 30 days for restoration, but because it was the case of restoration of an MJC for restoration, therefore, it would be covered under Article 137 of Limitation Act. Reliance was placed on judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. Sudhakar Reddy vs. Ind. Bank Housing Limited, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 476.

6. However, upon considering the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the High Court though has considered Section 141 of CPC, but the true effect of the said provision has not been considered. Section 141 of CPC is as under:-

"141. Miscellaneous proceedings:- The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction.

[Explanation.-In this section, the expression "proceedings" includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.]"

7. As per the aforesaid provision, the procedure provided by CPC in regard to suits shall be followed to all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. Explanation further makes it clear that proceedings includes proceedings under Order 9 CPC.

8. In view of Section 141 CPC, as the same procedural law would apply for dealing with the applications under Order 9 CPC as are applicable to a suit, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the limitation of 30 days would be read into Limitation Act to reckon the limitation period for moving an application for restoration. Even otherwise, once the limitation period for filing application for restoration of suit is 30 days, then any greater limitation for filing appl