Amit Mishra Vs Sanjeev Agarwal — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amit Mishra Vs Sanjeev Agarwal — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision allowed: impugned order dated 04.02.2019 set aside subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- cost by the revisionist to the private respondents within two weeks; on payment, the Order 9 Rule 7 application stands allowed; parties to appear before the Trial Court on 19.11.2025 and written statement to be filed within three weeks thereafter; no adjournments except in exceptional circumstances with costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 04.02.2019 rejecting the revisionist's Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. application should be set aside so as to grant the revisionist an opportunity of hearing/participation, notwithstanding the alleged non-service of notices and want of compliance with Rule 89-A of General Rules (Civil) following transfer of the suit, with substantial justice preferred over technicalities.

Court's answer

Taking a lenient view, and considering that matters should as far as possible be decided on merits together with the revisionist's offer to cooperate in early hearing, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost by the revisionist to the private respondents within two weeks.

Ratio / Principle

If the Rs. 10,000/- cost is deposited, the revisionist's application under Order 9 Rule 7 shall stand allowed; the parties are to appear before the Trial Court on 19th November, 2025, the revisionist is to file his written statement within three weeks from that appearance, and the Trial Court is to proceed expeditiously; on failure to file the written statement or cooperate, the Trial Court may pass appropriate orders including appropriate costs.

Key takeaways

None of the parties shall be entitled to adjournments except in exceptional circumstances, to be accompanied by appropriate costs.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.) allowed. The order dated 04.02.2019 of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 23, Lucknow (R.S. No. 1522 of 2022), rejecting on technical grounds the revisionist's application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C., was set aside on costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the revisionist to the private respondents within two weeks. On deposit of the cost, the Order 9 Rule 7 application stands allowed. The Court took a lenient view in favour of deciding matters on merits, noting counsel's undertaking to cooperate in early disposal. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 19.11.2025; written statement within three weeks thereof; Trial Court to proceed expeditiously; neither party entitled to adjournments except in exceptional circumstances accompanied by appropriate costs, failing which the Trial Court may pass appropriate orders including costs. Background: suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; transfer order dated 16.02.2017; alleged non-compliance with Rule 89-A of General Rules (Civil) after transfer; ex-parte proceedings on 09.01.2018; application of 23.03.2018 rejected by the impugned order. No precedents cited; no dissent.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CIVIL REVISION No. - 31 of 2019

Amit Mishra .....Revisionist(s) Versus Sanjeev Agarwal .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Adnan Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Singh, Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi Singh

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Abhishek Vishvakarma, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Vijay Lakshmi Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

Under challenge is the order dated 04.02.2019 whereby an application moved by the revisionist purporting to be under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. has been rejected.

The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The notices were issued and it is the categoric case of the revisionist that the notice were not served.

It is also urged that initially after the notices were issued, the matter was pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow whereas vide order dated 16.02.2017, the said suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 23, Lucknow.

It is urged that after the said transfer, the revisionist should have been granted an opportunity and a notice in terms of Rule 89-A of General Rules Civil which was not done and there was no means for the revisionist to know that the matter had transferred to a different court.

It is also urged that only 09.01.2018, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte

CLRE No. 31 of 2019

2

against the revisionist. As soon as the revisionist came to know of the order, he had moved an application on 23.03.2018 which has been rejected on technical grounds vide order dated 04.02.2019.

It is thus urged that where technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, it is the cause of substantial justice which must prevail and in the given circumstances, the said order dated 04.02.2019 deserves to be set aside and an opportunity of hearing be granted to the revisionist.

Sri Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist undertakes to cooperate in an early hearing of the proceedings and will not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

Sri Abhishek Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly submitted that it is the cause of substantial justice which must be preferred and keeping in line with the aforesaid, he submits that even though the report of the process server, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2, clearly indicates that the revisionist had read the summons which were offered to him and thereafter refused to receive it is a clear indication of his dilatory tactics and moreover, since he had not put in appearance right from the inception, the plea sought to be raised regarding want of compliance of a Rule 89-A of the General Rules Civil also does not come to the aid of the revisionist and in the given circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly passed an order which otherwise does not require any interference.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and also noticing the fact that since the revisionist had not put in appearance and though the application under Order 9 Rule 7 was moved at a later stage, however, considering the fact that as far as possible, the matters be decided on merits and since the learned counsel for the revisionist has also offered to cooperate in early hearing, accordingly, taking a lenient view, the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 is set aside on a cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid by the revisionist to the private respondents within a period of two weeks from today, in case if the said amount is so paid, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the revisionist shall stand allowed. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 19th November, 2025

CLRE No. 31 of 2019

3

and the revisionist shall file his written statement within a further period of three weeks from the date the parties appear before the Trial court and the Trial court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. In case if the revisionist fails to file written statement or cooperate in early hearing, it will be open for the Trial Court to proceed with the mater passing appropriate orders including appropriate costs.

It is also made clear that none of the parties shall be entitled for adjournments except in exceptional circumstances to be accompanied by appropriate costs.

With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Revision is allowed . The order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 23, Lucknow in R.S. No. 1522 of 2022 shall stand set aside subject to the compliance of deposit of cost as aforesaid.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

November 4, 2025

Asheesh

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench