The court emphasized a justice-oriented approach, permitting restoration of an appeal when sufficient cause for delay is established, prioritizing substantive rights over procedural technicalities.

Judgment

10/07/2025

1. This restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the legal representatives of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for restoring S.B. Civil First Appeal No.92/2003. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed therewith seeking condonation of the delay in filing the instant restoration application.

2. The relevant facts are that respondent-plaintiff Ramchand Renwa filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2003 passed in Civil Case No.53/2001 by Additional District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar against the appellants-defendants. The appellants preferred a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the impugned judgment and decree before this Court. This Court vide order dated 06.02.2004 while admitting the appeal, stayed execution of the decree under challenge. After notice, the appeal was kept for hearing in due course.

3. During pendency of the appeal, sole respondent Ramchand Renwa died, as such, vide order dated 20.04.2018, learned counsel for the appellant was directed to take necessary steps in this regard in the following terms:

“Learned counsel for the appellants to take requisite steps in wake of death of sole respondent.

Needful be done within a period of two weeks, failing which the appeal shall stands dismissed without reference to the Court.”

4. The per-emptory order dated 20.04.2018 was not complied with, consequently, the First Appeal stood dismissed by the Registry vide order dated 23.07.2018 in the following terms:-

“None present.

As per office report, no step has been taken for deceased sole respondent.

Hence in view of Hon’ble Court order dt.

20.04.2018, this appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance.”

5. Since appellant No.1 Prathvi Raj has also died on 24.01.2022, an application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC has now been filed by his legal representatives as well as the legal representatives of the appellant No.2 for restoration of the First Appeal which was dismissed for non-

compliance.

6. Reasons assigned in para 4 to 8 of the restoration application are reproduced as under:-

“4. That thereafter, the Counsel for the Appellants Shri G. Vaishnav has not informed to the present Applicants with regard to Orders passed by the Hon'ble Court and the local Counsel has also continuously in contact. Thereafter, the main Appellant Prathviraj S/o Shri Ami Lal has also died on 24.01.2022 after a long medical treatment, who was mainly handling the Case.

5. That since, the Legal Heirs of deceased Appellants belong to rural area and they are not aware about the legal proceedings before the Hon'ble Court. It is also necessary to mention here that their local Counsel at Sri Ganganagar as well as Counsel before the Hon'ble High Court have not properly informed about taking appropriate steps with regard to compliance of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court. When the Applicants have tried to contact with their Counsel Shri G. Vaishnav at Jodhpur then there was no response from the Counsel. In these circumstances, they could not take proper steps for taking Legal Representatives of Respondent on record with regard to deceased Ramchand Renwa.

6. That thereafter, the present Applicants have received the Notices of the matter of Execution No. 08/2022 (53/2001) titled as "Ramchand Renwa V/s Prathvi Raj & Ors." from the learned Trial Court Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. Then the Applicants first time came to know about