Allowed

Jaideep Makan v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Kirandul

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2025WP227/88/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two Writ Petitions seeking restoration of civil suits previously dismissed for want of prosecution. Although the appellate court rightly held that appeals against rejection of Order 9 Rule 4 applications were not maintainable, the High Court, in the interest of justice, exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to restore the suits.

What did the court decide?

Applications under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC allowed in both civil suits; suits restored to original numbers subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- in each case.

Jaideep Makan Vs Chairman, Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:16540

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 85 of 2020

¶7

Jaideep Makan S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Makan, Aged About 46
Years R/o Main Market Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli, District
Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶8

 --- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Chairman, Municipal Council Kirandul Tahsil Bacheli,
DistrictDantewadaChhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli,
District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶12

 --- Respondent(s)

¶13

with

¶14

WP227 No. 88 of 2020

¶15

Jaideep Makan S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Makan, Aged About 46
Years R/o Main Market Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli, District
Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶16

 ---Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 - Chairman, Municipal Council, Kirandul Tahsil Bacheli,
District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶19

2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli,
District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶20

 --- Respondent(s)

¶21

-2-

¶22

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

08.04.2025

¶27

The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions

¶28

seeking restoration of a civil suits bearing Case No.
2-B/2002 & 1-B/2002 which were dismissed for want of
prosecution by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II,
Dantewada.

¶29

Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suits filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the learned trial Court on 13.11.2017 for want of prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear on that date. He would further submit that the petitioner filed applications under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil

¶30

Procedure (for short, CPC) on 12.12.2017 for
restoration of the suits. However, the learned trial

¶31

Court rejected the applications on the ground that the
petitioner failed to assign sufficient reasons for his
non-appearance. Thereafter, a miscellaneous appeals

¶32

-3-

¶33

under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC were preferred, but the
learned appellate Court dismissed on the ground of
maintainability; thus, the present writ petitions have
been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the
impugned orders and restoration of the suits to their
original numbers.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeals, as no appeals lies against the rejection of applications under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, thus, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused orders impugned.

¶36

It appears that both the civil suits filed by the petitioner were dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.11.2017. Thereafter, applications for restoration under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC were filed on 12.12.2017 i.e. within 30 days from the date

¶37

of dismissal. The petitioner pleaded that he was unable
to appear due to a medical emergency of his father, who

¶38

was taken to Visakhapatnam. However, he could not
produce any supporting documents in this regard, which
led to the rejection of the applications by the trial

¶39

-4-

¶40

Court.

¶41

The learned appellate Court rightly held that the appeals against the rejection of applications under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC is not maintainable under Order 43

¶42

Rule 1 CPC. However, in the interest of justice, and
considering the reasons assigned in the applications
moved by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court

¶43

under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, this
Court deems it appropriate to allow the said
applications in both civil suits. Accordingly, the

¶44

applications under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151
CPC are hereby allowed. The civil suits are restored to
their original numbers, subject to payment of cost of
Rs.1,000/- payable to the defendant in both cases.

¶45

As a result, both writ petitions are hereby allowed .

¶46

Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge

¶47

Nadim

Jaideep Makan v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Kirandul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaideep Makan v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Kirandul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Deepak Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Saraswati Chouhan Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Tribhuvan Prasad Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Central Govt.employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.durg Vs Housing And Urban Development Corporation Limited And Anr.

Manmati And Ors. Vs Bhajju Ram And Ors.

Jaideep Makan Vs Chairman, Municipal Council Kirandul