To restore a suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, the applicant must demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance and delay through cogent evidence; unsubstantiated claims of personal tragedy or third-party interference are insufficient to justify restoration.

Order

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 16.12.2025

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 16.12.2025

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part Full is pronounced

4. Date of pronouncement 31.01.2026

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC, for short) has been preferred against the order dated 18.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur, in Civil Misc. Case no. 32/2003 whereby the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 28.04.1992 the appellant-plaintiff Badam Singh entered into an agreement for sale of certain land with the respondent-defendant No. 1 Ajay Chand. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement before the District Judge, Dholpur in the year 2003.

3. The Learned trial court framed the issues on 05.12.1996 and ordered for ex-parte proceedings against respondent-defendant no. 1,3,4 and 5; only respondent-defendant no. 2 Laxmi Narayan was contesting the suit. The evidence of the appellant-plaintiff was recorded on 13.10.1999 and the evidence of the respondent-defendants was due to be recorded on 24.04.2001. However, on the said date, neither the appellant-plaintiff nor his counsel appeared, because of which the Trial Court dismissed the suit for default.

4. On 02.04.2003 the appellant-plaintiff filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 to set aside the order passed whereby the suit was dismissed for non-appearance, along with an application under Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay. Defendant-Respondent 2, in his reply dated 31.03.2004 denied the averments of the appellant-plaintiff. The Ld. Court dismissed the application vide order dated 18.07.2005. Hence this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the appellant-plaintiff and his counsel could not appear before the learned trial court on 24.04.2001 for the reason that the brother of the appellant-plaintiff, namely Leeladhar, was kidnapped by some village goons. It was submitted that the appellant-plaintiff was busy in the search for his brother Leeladhar for over 1½ years, after which Leeladhar returned home from the captivity of the village goons. After this, the appellant-plaintiff was mentally perturbed for about 6-7 months and for the said reason, he could not inform his counsel to appear before the learned court and take care of the suit.

6. It was argued that though the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff was aware about the dismissal earlier, but the information about the same could not be communicated to the appellant-plaintiff despite posting letters addressed to him. This was because the respondent-defendant no. 2 Laxmi Narayan works in a post office and hence acting in a mala fide manner prevented the delivery of the said letters to appellant-plaintiff.

7. It was submitted that after recovering from the perturbance, he contacted his counsel on 21.03.2003 and then he came to know about the dismissal of the suit. Then on 02.04.2003, the appellant-plaintiff filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, 1908 along with application under Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 to set aside the order of dismis