Allowed¶28

A.S.Surendran Nair & Ors. v. Muthoot Finance Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Apr 2026FAO/184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO 184/2023, Delhi High Court, decided 08.04.2026 (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) - restoration of suit for damages dismissed in default on 06.09.2021; Order IX Rule 4 / Order IX Rule 9 CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act condonation of 14-day delay; COVID-19 period non-appearance; counsel misinformed of adjournment to 11.10.2021; reliance on Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 limitation exclusion (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) and Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786; appeal allowed, order dated 21.02.2023 set aside, suit restored, listed 30.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Trial Court order dated 21.02.2023 set aside; suit restored to its original position and directed to be listed at the first instance before the concerned Court on 30.04.2026. ¶28

A.S.Surendran Nair & Ors. Vs Muthoot Finance Limited & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Trial Court order dated 21.02.2023 set aside; suit restored to its original position and directed to be listed at the first instance before the concerned Court on 30.04.2026.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause was made out for the plaintiffs'/their counsel's non-appearance that led to dismissal of the suit in default, so as to justify restoration of the suit. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The impugned order was passed primarily on account of the non-appearance of the plaintiffs' counsel; proceedings in the relevant period were restricted due to COVID-19, and the appellants' counsel furnished reasonable explanation for his non-appearance during that period.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The appellants made out their case because the default occurred during Covid-19 and the reasons stand sufficiently explained by them.

¶27

Key takeaways

The present appeal is allowed and the Trial Court's order dated 21.02.2023 is set aside.ratio¶28
Consequently, the suit is restored to its original position and is to be listed at the first instance before the concerned Court on 30.04.2026.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.), FAO 184/2023, decided 08.04.2026: Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC by plaintiff-appellants against the order dated 21.02.2023 of ADJ-03, Saket Courts (Misc DJ No. 99/2021), whereby their restoration application (filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, considered under Order IX Rule 9 CPC) with a Section 5 Limitation Act application condoning a 14-day delay was rejected for want of sufficient cause, their damages suit having been dismissed in default on 06.09.2021; counsel had been misinformed that the 06.09.2021 hearing was adjourned to 11.10.2021. Noting the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation-exclusion direction in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (order dated 10.01.2022) and Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh, (2010) 6 SCC 786 (no straitjacket formula for condonation), the Court held the default occurred during Covid-19 and the reasons were sufficiently explained, allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 21.02.2023, restored the suit and directed listing on 30.04.2026.

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 184/2023

¶4

A.S.SURENDRAN NAIR & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr.Jojo Jose and Ms.Sunita John, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Ritu Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1, respondent No.3(a), (b) & respondent No.4

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R

¶9

% 08.04.2026

¶10

The present appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), by the appellants, who were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, assailing the Order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Misc DJ No. 99/2021 by ADJ-03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi.

¶11

Briefly stated, the appellants, had instituted a suit for damages, which came to be dismissed in default on 06.09.2021 due to their non-appearance. An application for restoration of the suit though filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC was considered under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. The application was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 14 days. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the said applications vide order dated 21.02.2023, holding that no sufficient cause had been made out for non-appearance.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the suit was listed before the Trial Court on 06.09.2021 at item no.3 in the cause list. When the counsel inquired, he was informed that the matter had already been taken up

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

FAO 184/2023

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:14:08

¶16

and was adjourned to 11.10.2021, which date was entered by him in his court diary. However, upon appearance on 11.10.2021, it was informed that the matter has already been dismissed in default on 06.09.2021. The delay of 14 days in filing the application for restoration was sought to be condoned by contending that it was filed immediately on coming to know of the dismissal and it took some time to prepare and file the restoration application.

¶17

The respondents/defendants contested the application by claiming that the appellants were not diligent in pursuing the suit and even on previous dates i.e., on 06.07.2020, 19.03.2021 and 03.05.2021, the appellants remained unrepresented before the Trial Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred in the backdrop of COVID-19 and that though the counsel appeared on 06.09.2021, he was wrongly informed that the matter was adjourned to 11.10.2021, on which date when he appeared, then only he became aware of the dismissal of the application i.e. on the previous date.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submission that the appellants had adopted a casual approach and failed to show due diligence or alacrity in pursuing their case.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the same was passed primarily on account of the non-appearance of the counsel of the plaintiffs on the relevant dates. However, in the said period proceedings were taken up in a restrictive manner due to COVID-19. Though counsel for the respondents appeared, counsel for the appellants has furnished reasonable explanation for his non-appearance during this period.

2 of 3

FAO 184/2023

It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court, In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition(Civil) No.3 of 2020 (Order dated 10.01.2022) , bearing in mind the difficulties faced by the litigants, directed that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

¶25

The Supreme Court in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh 1, has held that while considering an Application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. It has been further stated therein that each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances.

¶26

In the present case, the restoration application was filed with only a delay of only 14 days, for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed explaining and seeking condonation of the said delay.

¶27

This Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have been able to make out their case, as the default was during Covid-19 and the reasons stands sufficiently explained by them.

¶28