The Patna High Court held that a civil revision challenging an order allowing restoration of a suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is maintainable. The court found no material irregularity as the trial court reasonably accepted grounds for non-appearance.
The civil revision application is disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.185 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Ramvilash Singh S/O Deo Lagan Singh R/O Village - Bhagwan Bigha, Post Office And P.S. Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Waliur Rahman, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondent/s : …………. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 19.7.2012 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Aurangabad in Misc. Case No.3 of 2007 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to allow the application filed by the plaintiffsopposite parties under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’).
An issue of maintainability of the present proceedings has been raised by the office.
Patna High Court C.R. No.185 of 2012 (5) dt.22-01-2013
2 / 2
Considering the nature of relief prayed in the present application, this civil revision is held maintainable.
Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the order impugned inter alia on grounds that the reasons assigned for non-appearance of the plaintiffs-opposite parties is not supported by evidence.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials on record including the order impugned.
A perusal of the order passed by learned Court below manifests that the learned Court below having noticed the grounds raised by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for his non-appearance at the stage when the suit was called out, has found the same reasonable and has recorded his satisfaction thereon. The power vested under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code in the Court concerned being discretionary and the satisfaction has been expressed by the learned trial Court for restoring the suit, no material irregularity or perversity can be found requiring any interference. This application is accordingly, disposed of.
As the suit is of the year 1998 learned trial Court would be well advised to expedite the trial of the case.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Bibhash/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision application challenging the order allowing restoration of a suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is maintainable.
Whether the trial court's satisfaction regarding reasonable grounds for non-appearance warrants interference in a discretionary decision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramvilash Singh
Ram Janam Singh
Baban Singh
Munish Singh
Rajaram Singh
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
