Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:53:40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.181 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Biswaranjan Das …. Petitioner

-versus-

Jagannath Das and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mishra, Advocate

For O.P. No.1

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

31^st October 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Petitioner

and Mr. G. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2024 of the learned Additional District Judge, Anandapur passed

in F.A.O. No.01 of 2023.

3. Present Petitioner is Defendant No.2 in C.S. No.60 of 2008 now pending in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Anandapur. The

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:53:40 Plaintiff, who is present Opposite Party No.1, filed the suit to rectify the name of the vendee in the sale deed dated 27.11.1995 along with consequential reliefs. At the stage of hearing, awaiting evidence from the parties, the suit was dismissed for default on 18.11.2016. It needs to be mentioned here that in the suit, Defendant No.2 has also raised counter claim which was proceeded on despite the suit was dismissed for default against the Plaintiff. Then a petition was filed under Order 9 Rule 9, C.P.C. to restore the suit before the learned trial court which was rejected and challenging the same, F.A.O. No.01 of 2023 was preferred before the court of Additional District Judge, Anandapur. The Additional District Judge, Anandapur since allowed the F.A.O. restoring the suit in favour of the Plaintiff, the same is challenged in present C.M.P. by Defendant No.2.

4. The Plaintiff mainly took two grounds for restoration of the suit, i.e. there was communication gap with his conducting lawyer as no information could be given to him by the counsel and secondly, his residence is around 80 kms. away from the court and as such he could not know the fact of dismissal of the suit at appropriate time.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:53:40

5. Learned Additional District Judge, Anandapur while dealing with the appeal has vividly discussed both such grounds to arrive the conclusion in favour of the Plaintiff and held that as per the assertions made and materials brought on record, the same show a bonafide reason in favour of the Plaintiff justifying sufficient cause for his absence in participating the suit and since such reasons were beyond the control of the Plaintiff, it would be appropriate to restore the suit.

6. In Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, (1955) 1 SCC 323, it is observed as follows:-

“ 14. Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.

15. The existence of such a principle has been doubted, and in any event was condemned as unworkable and impractical by O'Sullivan, J. in Hariram Rewachand v. Pribhdas Mulchand [Hariram Rewachand v. Pribhdas Mulchand, 1944 SCC OnLine Sind CC 16 : AIR 1945 Sind 98 at p. 102]. He regarded it as an Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:53:40 indeterminate term “liable to cause misconception” and his views were shared by Wanchoo, C.J. and Bapna, J. in Rajasthan : Sewa Ram v. Mi