The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order restoring a dismissed title suit to its original file. The Court held that the learned Munsiff had sufficient cause for restoration and exercised his discretion properly.
The writ application praying for quashing of the restoration order was dismissed.
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 Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6096 of 2013
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subash Chandra Yadav
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.1.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2009 by learned Munsiff, Bhabhua, whereby he has restored Title Suit No. 287 of 1998 to its original file which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide an order dated 6.5.2009.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6096 of 2013 (2) dt.25-06-2013
2 / 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea taken in the Miscellaneous case for restoration of suit was that learned counsel for the plaintiff could not appear on call of the case as he was engaged in another Court. Accepting this plea the Court below allowed the Misc. Case No. 21 of 2009 and restored the suit to its original file which was dismissed for default.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ground taken for restoration of the suit was not permissible in view of the law laid down by this Court reported in 2006(2) PLJR 416 ( Vibha Kumari Vs. State of Bihar).
From the impugned order it appears that the suit which was dismissed for default was directed to be restored to its original file subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/-. In my opinion, it is purely discretion of the Court to allow an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for failure on the part of the plaintiff to appear
Patna High Court CWJC No.6096 of 2013 (2) dt.25-06-2013
3 / 3
on the date fixed by the Court. In the present case learned Court below after considering the application and upon satisfaction that there existed sufficient cause for such failure allowed application for restoration.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below which has been done in the interest of justice.
In view of the above, the writ application is accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition praying for quashing of the order restoring a default-dismissed suit due to sufficient cause.
Whether the learned Munsiff committed any illegality in allowing restoration of the suit without holding an inquiry into sufficient cause.
Whether the restoration order was done in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vibha Kumari Vs. State of BiharReferred¶20
2006(2) PLJR 416 ( Vibha Kumari Vs. State of Bihar)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Bansh Ram
Lalan Ram
Tribhuwan Ram
Karpura Kuwar
Raju Ram
Khakhnu Ram Dusadh
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
