Allowed

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. v. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2012MCC/79/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed an application for restoration of a dismissed civil revision. The court ignored a four-day procedural delay and found the applicants' case just and genuine under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC, recalling the previous dismissal to allow a hearing on merits based on the principle of substantial justice.

What did the court decide?

The application for restoration was allowed; the order dated 25.7.2001 was recalled; Civil Revision No.411/2001 was restored to the file for hearing on merits and listed immediately.

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Naresh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

i
N
loa
:1
T
.^•^.:t'..?4;.;©';;;©:;ia^ ^
|%::,;.';.<U":.®,;Q^
::;ct?®iilf^<'^•^^iSf^ [w.
;;;;(t^ii
r^i§i°;
[?8;
^'^
to
3(.&^
iil^i.? fia
»'•
^^^^^^
^S ^'^^li!^i^1^^1^i^^^
^llllplilN^tJ^
'9SiSii93WSil'i^
iyp^^ll-'!:%t^i

M
M
^.
^^.s
^

'm^.M.

^r'u

••'•'1^1—^^©^"

Bs^^!^^^

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

¶9

DIVISIQN BENCH

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE IWR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ.

¶11

M.C.C.N0.79of2001

¶12

Applicants

¶13

Kamal Bhan Singh and others

¶14

Versus

¶15

Non-applicants

¶16

Ram Naresh Singh and others

¶17

APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF CIVIL REVISION N0.411/2001

¶18

Present: None for the applicant

¶19

¶20

Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 3, 8 to 13. None for other respondents.

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(Passed^{on16-07-2012)}

¶23

Per Abhav Manohar Sapre. J.

¶24

The applicant has filed the instant application for restoration of Civil Revision No.411/2001, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2001, which reads as under:

¶25

--y-

¶26

"Shri jSunil Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri |Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the nonapplicants. Shri Dubey, submits that the civil suit^'has already been dismissed. In view of the statement made by counsel for the non-applicants, this revision is dismissed with liberty to restore/revive afresh if any

¶27

cause of action stillsurvives."

¶28

As per office report, this restoration application has been filed with a delay of 4days and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the applicants.

¶29

However, taking into consideration the fact that there is delay of only four days in filing the restoration application and further considering that condoning the delay advances the cause ofjustice, whereas not condoning the delay would defeat the very purpose of claiming substantial justice, the delay is ignored.

¶30

Also considered the restoration application on merits.

¶31

This is an application made by the applicants, who were applicants of Civil Revision No.411/2001 and had filed the said revision against the order

¶32

dated 10.4.2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class-l, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No.5-A/79. The said civil revision came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 25,7.2001. However, on that date, considering the submission of learned counsel for the non-applicants that the civil suit has already been dismissed, the civil revision was also dismissed with liberty to the applicants to restore/revive afresh if any cause of action still survives. 6. This application is placed before this Court as per rules because in the meantime the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the said petition, has demitted the office.

¶33

" c

¶34

We have gone through the cause stated in the applicationfor restoration of Civil Revision No.411/2001. It is duly supported with an affidavit. Having gone through the cause, we are satisfied with the cause pleaded in the application, which is just, bona fide and genuine. It, therefore, constitutes a sufficient cause within the meaning of Order41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and otherwise also. It deserves to be and is,

¶35

accordingly, accepted asbeing a sufficient cause.

¶36

^
^,c

¶37

Indeed, restoring the petition to its original file for being heard on merits satisfy the principles of doing substantial justice to the parties because dismissal of any case in default alwaysdeprives a person from his right of being heard on merits. Indeed, this is what was held by the Supreme Court in one of its locus classic case reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 (Sangram Singh Vs- Election Tribunal, Kotah and another). We follow this principle laid , down by the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh's case (supra) for recalling of the impugned order.

¶38

Accordingly and in the light of the foregoing discussion, the application made by the applicants succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 25.7.2001 passed inCivil Revision No.411/2001 ishereby recalled.

¶39

As a result, Civil Revision No.411/2001 is restored to its file for its hearing on merits in accordance with law.

¶40

A copy of this order be kept in the file of the case of Civil Revision No.411/2001.

¶41

Office is directed to list Civil Revision No.411/2001 todav itself.

¶42

Sd/-
AbhayManoharSapre
Judge

¶43

Sd/-
G. Minhajuddin
Judge

¶44

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. v. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. v. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartik and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Yogesh Soy Vs Secratory Madhyamik Shiksha MANDALandORS

Union of India and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs Mathura Prasad Pandey and Anr.

J.K.Kachchhap Vs C.S.E.B. and Ors.