Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Order 9 Rule 4 CPC - Primarily used for restoring a suit dismissed for non-appearance or non-prosecution; it can be filed against orders under Rules 2 and 3 of Order 9. It is generally considered a separate application and not merged with Order 9 Rule 9. ["SHRIKANT S/O. BASAPPA KADLIBUDDI vs DANAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KADLIBUDDI - Karnataka"], ["Krishna Kumar @ Bhullu vs Chamru - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Jagatnarayan vs Smt. Asha Bai - Madhya Pradesh"], ["JAGATNARAYAN vs SMT. ASHA BAI - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Mamata Samantaray VS Saraswati Patra - Current Civil Cases"], ["Smt. Prasadibai vs Mst. Annu - Madhya Pradesh"], ["JAGJIT KAUR vs MADAN MOHAN KAPUR(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Messers Sukhdev Prasad Goyenka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Iqbal Khan vs Chandra Prakash Choradiya - Madhya Pradesh"]
Order 9 Rule 9 CPC - Specifically deals with applications for setting aside or restoring a suit after dismissal under Rule 8 or 3, typically for non-appearance after proper service. It is a distinct procedural remedy and generally cannot be filed simultaneously with Rule 4 applications; it is often dismissed if found barred by time or improper. ["Kamlesh Babu Shakya VS Rakesh Babu Shakya - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Krishna Kumar @ Bhullu vs Chamru - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Jagatnarayan vs Smt. Asha Bai - Madhya Pradesh"], ["JAGATNARAYAN vs SMT. ASHA BAI - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Messers Sukhdev Prasad Goyenka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Iqbal Khan vs Chandra Prakash Choradiya - Madhya Pradesh"]
Can they be filed together? - The consensus from the sources indicates that Order 9 Rule 4 and Rule 9 applications are filed separately because they serve different purposes and are governed by different conditions. Filing both simultaneously is generally not permitted, and courts tend to treat them as distinct applications. However, in certain cases, an application under Rule 4 may be made in response to an order under Rule 9, but not as a combined or single filing.
Order 9 Rule 4 and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC are separate procedural remedies for different situations related to the dismissal of suits for non-appearance or non-prosecution. They are not filed together but are filed independently based on the specific circumstances of the case. Courts emphasize that these applications should be treated distinctly, and their filing together is generally not permissible.
References:- ["SHRIKANT S/O. BASAPPA KADLIBUDDI vs DANAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KADLIBUDDI - Karnataka"]- ["Kamlesh Babu Shakya VS Rakesh Babu Shakya - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Krishna Kumar @ Bhullu vs Chamru - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Jagatnarayan vs Smt. Asha Bai - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["JAGATNARAYAN vs SMT. ASHA BAI - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Mamata Samantaray VS Saraswati Patra - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Smt. Prasadibai vs Mst. Annu - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["JAGJIT KAUR vs MADAN MOHAN KAPUR(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Messers Sukhdev Prasad Goyenka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Iqbal Khan vs Chandra Prakash Choradiya - Madhya Pradesh"]
In the realm of civil litigation in India, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides specific remedies for parties whose suits are dismissed due to non-appearance or other procedural defaults. A common query arises: Can applications under Order 9 Rule 4 and Order 9 Rule 9 be filed together as a single petition? This question often intersects with broader concerns about the maintainability of petitions, such as those under Order VI Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings) in execution proceedings, where procedural precision is paramount to avoid rejection.
While Order VI Rule 17 governs amendments during trial stages, Order 9 addresses dismissals for default. Understanding these distinctions ensures compliance and success. This post delves into the nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and related contexts like land acquisition proceedings.
Order 9 Rule 4 and Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC are distinct provisions addressing different dismissal scenarios and are generally filed separately. They are not designed for joint filing but invoked based on the specific circumstances of the dismissal. Courts emphasize procedural clarity to prevent ambiguities. Karni Dan Singh VS Ram Chandra - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 690Shyam S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal Mandora vs Ugamraj Sand S/o Shri Kewalchand Ji Sand - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
This rule allows an application to set aside or restore suits dismissed for plaintiff's non-appearance before summons service or failure to pay process fees. It promotes justice by giving a second chance where defaults are excusable. Courts typically require sufficient cause within the limitation period. NURNAHAR BEWA VS RABINDRA NATH DEV - 1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 195
Invoked after summons service, when the suit is dismissed for non-appearance despite notice (Rule 8). Rule 9(1) permits setting aside upon showing sufficient cause, with notice to the defendant. This ensures fairness post-initial opportunity. Narendra Pratap VS Gopi Lal - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1851
Combining them blurs procedural lines:- Different triggers: Rule 4 for early-stage defaults; Rule 9 for later non-prosecution. Karni Dan Singh VS Ram Chandra - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 690- Varying requirements: Limitation, notice, and grounds differ.- Risks: Courts may reject hybrid applications as circumventing rules, leading to dismissal. Shyam S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal Mandora vs Ugamraj Sand S/o Shri Kewalchand Ji Sand - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
Judicial practice reinforces independence: applications under Order 9 Rule 4 and Rule 9 are distinct and serve different purposes, and generally should be filed separately. Karni Dan Singh VS Ram Chandra - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 690
Courts often distinguish Order 9 provisions in specialized proceedings, underscoring the need for precise invocation.
In ex-parte decree scenarios, confusion arises between Rule 9 (dismissal restoration) and Rule 13 (setting aside ex-parte decrees). Precedents clarify: The question then is whether the application would be under Order 9 Rule 9 or Order 9 Rule 13 or Section 151(2)? It is settled law that the statement under Section 19... is not treated as a plaint. Deputy Commissioner Williamnagar VS Monen Sangma - 2019 Supreme(Megh) 68Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar VS State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 82
In land acquisition cases under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:- Provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 apply to ex-parte awards, allowing setting aside if sufficient cause shown. The ex-parte award had not attained finality. JAGJIT KAUR vs MADAN MOHAN KAPUR(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS- Applications under Rule 9 or 13 (or even Section 151) are treated similarly if merits warrant, but filed distinctly. Trial courts err in rejecting on maintainability alone. Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar VS State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 82
Another ruling: if an application is filed under Order IX, Rule 13 or under Rule 9 of CPC or under Section 151, CPC, it does not make any difference. Yet, specificity aids disposal. Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar VS State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 82
Delays in filing under Order 9 Rule 9 or 13 may be condoned for justice: the I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and the I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. should be taken on file... both the suits should be clubbed. Selvaraj VS Ekambaram - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 2684
High Courts intervene sparingly unless perversity exists, prioritizing participation. Selvaraj VS Ekambaram - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 2684
In execution under Order 21 Rule 37, additional pleadings (akin to amendments under Order 8 Rule 9 or Order VI Rule 17) require necessity: It may be termed as 'subsequent pleadings' governed by Order 8, Rule 9 CPC. One thing is clear that replication cannot be filed as a matter of right. Sarmukh Singh VS Arun Kumar - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2939
This mirrors Order 9's precision—separate filings prevent abuse.
Generally, separate filings rule, but exceptions exist:- Intertwined grounds: Courts may consolidate if convenience warrants, per discretion.- Land acquisition flexibility: Rule 9/13 interchangeable if non-merits dismissal. Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar VS State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 82- Limitations differ: Adhere strictly to avoid rejection.
However, precedents caution: applications under Rules 4 and 9 are based on different dismissal circumstances and are not inherently filed together. Shyam S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal Mandora vs Ugamraj Sand S/o Shri Kewalchand Ji Sand - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
To navigate effectively:- File separately: Tailor each to facts—Rule 4 for pre-service, Rule 9 for post-service.- Specify grounds: Include limitation compliance, notice, sufficient cause.- Multiple grounds?: Sequential filings or seek consolidation permission.- Consult precedents: Review cases like land acquisition for analogies. Deputy Commissioner Williamnagar VS Monen Sangma - 2019 Supreme(Megh) 68
Order 9 Rule 4 and Rule 9 CPC applications are not typically filed together, preserving procedural integrity. This principle extends to related queries, like maintainability under Order VI Rule 17 in execution proceedings, where specificity avoids dismissal.
Key Takeaways:- Distinct rules for distinct dismissals. Karni Dan Singh VS Ram Chandra - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 690- Separate filings ensure success.- Exceptions rare, discretion-based.- In contexts like ex-parte or land acquisition, choose wisely (Rule 9 vs. 13). Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar VS State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 82
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on precedents and is not legal advice. Laws and interpretations vary; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
References:- Karni Dan Singh VS Ram Chandra - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 690, Shyam S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal Mandora vs Ugamraj Sand S/o Shri Kewalchand Ji Sand - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780, NURNAHAR BEWA VS RABINDRA NATH DEV - 1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 195, Narendra Pratap VS Gopi Lal - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1851, Narendra Pratap VS Gopi Lal - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1848, Deputy Commissioner Williamnagar VS Monen Sangma - 2019 Supreme(Megh) 68, Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar VS State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 82, Selvaraj VS Ekambaram - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 2684, Sarmukh Singh VS Arun Kumar - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2939, JAGJIT KAUR vs MADAN MOHAN KAPUR(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
#CPCIndia #Order9CPC #CivilLitigation
Rule 4 CPC and not under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. ... 8 of Order 9 and the application filed under Rule 4 of Order 9 to be treated as an application under Rule 9 of Order 9 of CPC. ... Applicati....
filed under Order 9 rule 4 CPC on merits. ... have been dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 CPC and thus, the application which was filed by the respondent /plaintiff under Order 9 rule 4 CPC can be considered as an application filed under O....
plaintiffs wanted to get the civil suit restored, the application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC was maintainable and the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 could not have been invoked. ... Niwas, District Mandla in civil suit No.16-A/22 whereby defendant/applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 11, Order #HL....
The suit was filed by the appellant himself as he himself had entered into an agreement to sell. The application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the appellant, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC was filed by the appellant and the present appeal has also been filed by the ap....
The application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the appellant, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC was filed by the appellant and the present appeal has also been filed by the appellant. ... Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC as ba....
In such an event, the plaintiff, if so advised, may bring a fresh suit or apply for an order to set aside the dismissal under Order 9, Rule 4. ... If the defendant fails to appear at an adjourned hearing, the Court may pass an ex parte decree under this Rule ‘and Order 9, Rule 8, and in order event defendant may appl....
Accordingly, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC (which should have been under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC) was filed on 08- 01-2017. ... Furthermore, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC (which should Signature Not Verified have been filed under #HL_STA....
When an application under Order 9 Rule 4 for restoring the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was moved, the same was also dismissed by way of the impugned order which seeks to justify the proceedings in the Court. ... The argument that the present impugned order is appealable is devoid of merit as Order 43 do....
Issues: Non-appearance leading to dismissal of civil suit, application under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC, sufficiency ... 9 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC, citing ill-health and mistakes by the counsel as reasons for non-appearance. ... of the Case: The appellant's civil suit was dismissed due to non-appearance, and the appellant filed an application under #H....
under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C as well as section 151 of C.P.C. ... It was also not the case of the petitioners that that very order was passed in the absence of the plaintiff. In that case the plaintiff could invoke the aid of Order 9 Rule 4. The suit in question was dismissed for non- prosecution. ... an application under #....
Upon service of the notice on the claimant of interested person, he is treated to be a plaintiff and Land Acquisition Collector to be a defendant for the purpose of conducting the proceedings as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act. It is settled law that the statement under Section 19 in terms of the objection under Section 18 of the Act is not treated as a plaint. The question then is whether the application would be under Order 9 Rule 9 or Order 9 Rule 13 or Section 151(2)?#HL_EN....
It may be termed as "subsequent pleadings" governed by Order 8, Rule 9 CPC. One thing is clear that replication cannot be filed as a matter of right or course. It is to be filed when it is necessary under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC. It is necessary, in case, the Courts understand all pleadings subsequent to the original plaint and written statement filed in the suit, by whatever name it is called.
Upon service of the notice on the claimant or interested person, he is treated to be a plaintiff and Land Acquisition Collector to be a defendant for the purpose of conducting the proceedings as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act. Collector, Raipur, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 701, more particularly Paragraph No.4, which is reproduced below; "4. The question then is whether the application would be under Order 9 Rule 9 or Order 9 Rule 13 or Section 151(2)? It is settled law t....
i.e. the I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and the I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. should be taken on file, if they are otherwise in order, and disposed of. In the event of setting aside the order of dismissal in O.S.No.69 of 2001 and the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.34 of 2002, both the suits should be clubbed together and a joint trial should be conducted and disposed of within three months thereafter.
The facts are apparent enough to indicate that the respondent-wife had not been acting bonafide in the entire context. Reliance, placed by the learned counsel for the respondents upon Veerpal Kaur’s case, Rajesh Kumar’s case, Peravinchrda’s case, K.Ganeshan’s case and Ranjeet Kaur’s case (supra), is misconceived. Inspite thereof, application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. came to be filed on 8.9.2006. Even otherwise, as per own averment of the respondent-wife, the certified cop....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
