Single Judge dismissed a petition filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC challenging the dismissal of a restoration application deemed barred by limitation, rejecting claims of negligence due to misplaced files.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~71
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Date of decision: 10.12.2024
+ CM(M) 4043/2024
M/S. WORLDS WINDOW WARDHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shubham, Advocate
versus
M/S. HONEY OVERSEAS THROUGH PROPRIETOR
.....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
CM Appl. 72274/2024 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM Appl. 72275/2024 delay of 42 days in re-filing of petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 42 days in refiling the petition stands condoned.
CM(M) 4043/2024
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed CM (M) 4043/2024 By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Da te:0 6.01.2025 16:24:18
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM (M) 4043/2024 By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Da te:0 6.01.2025 16:24:18
Page 2 of 5
also argued that court should adopt a liberal approach in cases where the delay is caused due to genuine reason and beyond the control of the party and petitioner should not be made to suffer because of the fault of his Advocate.
“8. Where a case is brought before the court beyond the period of limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the sufficient cause, which means an adequate and enough reasons which prevented him to approach the court within the period of limitation. Even after the “sufficient cause” is established, the court still has the discretion to decide whether to allow or dismiss the application for condonation of delay upon the bona fides of the party. Such discretion is not to be exercised by the court when the delay is caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide. In such cases, even though the law of limitation harshly affects or causes inconvenience to the party, the court has to apply it with all its rigour. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal and justice oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 5
Digitally Signed CM (M) 4043/2024 By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Da te:0 6.01.2025 16:24:18
or the then counsel to make inspection of the court record and file application for restoration of the suit within the limitation period.
(deceased) through LRs. Vs. Gaon Sabha Jindpur 2012 (4) ILR
Del. 50 held that the litigant has to be vigilant and should contact and take part in the proceedings with due diligence, and if negligence on the part of the litigant is established in a particular case, then the courts are not to come to rescue of such applicants.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM (M) 4043/2024 By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Da te:0 6.01.2025 16:24:18
Page 4 of 5
has been filed more than one year from the date of such dismissal. Even as per petitioner’s own averments, the file was found in the month of May 2024, but the application under Order IX Rule 4CPC was filed on 4.07.2024. It is not understood as to why petitioner took another two months for filing the application for restoration. The trial court has rightly concluded that the application was devoid of any merit and is hopelessly barred by limitation.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2024
ib
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed CM (M) 4043/2024 By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Da te:0 6.01.2025 16:24:18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC as barred by limitation.
Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration application.
Whether the impugned order by the Trial Court suffering from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baswaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition OfficerReferred¶24
Baswaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
S. Gurdeep Singh through LRs vs. S. Surjeet Singh & Anr.Applied¶30
S. Gurdeep Singh through LRs vs. S. Surjeet Singh & Anr. FAO 249/2024
Man Singh (deceased) through LRs. Vs. Gaon Sabha JindpurReferred¶37
Man Singh (deceased) through LRs. Vs. Gaon Sabha Jindpur 2012 (4) ILR Del. 50 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. WORLDS WINDOW WARDHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
M/S. HONEY OVERSEAS THROUGH PROPRIETOR
Ravinder Dudeja
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
