AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by taking exception to the order dated 22.8.2026 passed by the 5th District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore in Misc. Judicial Case No. 36/2019, whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1/applicant/plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC and restored the subject suit RCS No. 12A/2016.
The facts suffice to decide this revision petition are that the respondent No. 1/applicant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") executed a sale deed in respect of Survey No. 439/2 admeasuring 1.191 hectare of village Datoda, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore in favour of respondent No. 2 Jay Kumar Bajaj, who in turn had sold the said piece of land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.1.2008 to the petitioner-Society. Thereafter on 2.4.2014 the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4, which was fixed for evidence on 6.2.2019 for recording the statement of the plaintiff's witnesses, but the plaintiff sought adjournment and thus the case was adjourned for 26.3.2019, thereafter for 4.4.2019 and ultimately on 24.4.2019, when neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared in the Court, and resultantly, the trial Court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
On 11.5.2019, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for restoration of the civil suit stating that due to the marriage in the family and illness, he could not attend the date and the suit be restored to its original number. The application was seriously opposed by the petitioner. Plaintiff examined himself and his brother-in-law in support of his application.
During the pendency of the restoration application, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment, which was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 24.9.2025. The petitioner challenged that order in MP No. 5794/2025, which was allowed by order dated 10.10.2025 and the order allowing the amendment was set aside. Thereafter on 3.12.2025 the plaintiff examined himself and exhibited one marriage card as Ex. P/2. On 25.2.2026 the brother-in-law of the plaintiff Jagdish Parmar appeared in the Court and his statement was recorded. He produced another marriage card as Ex. P/3. Upon the objection raised by the petitioner an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to take the marriage card on record, which was allowed by order dated 8.4.2026. Thereafter, the cross-examination of PW-2 Jagdish Parmar was completed and by the impugned order dated 22.8.2026 the trial Court allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC and restored the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Society submits that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the reason assigned in the application that he was busy in the marriage of his niece and two marriage cards were produced by the plaintiff exhibited as P/2 & P/3 to prove this fact. The name of the plaintiff was not mentioned in the marriage invitation card (Ex.P/2) and, therefore, bogus card was prepared and produced through witness Ex. P/3, wherein the name of the plaintiff has been shown. He further submits that the plaintiff was negligent towards the court proceedings and without any sufficient cause he remained absent on 24.4.2019, consequently the trial Court has correctly dismissed the suit in default. He submits that no document could be produced by the plaintiff in respect of his illness. The cause shown in the application could not be proved and the trial court has committed error in allowing the application and restoring the suit at the cost of Rs. 5,000/-. He relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Parimal Vs. Veena alias Bharti reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545, wherein the Supreme Court dealing with the matter arising out of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC has held that in the absence of sufficient cause the ex parte decree cannot be set aside. The relevant paragraphs reads as under:-
"13.Sufficient Cause" is an expression which has been used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. (Vide: Ramlal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 222; Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood, AIR 1992 SC 1540; and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another, (2010) 5 SCC 459).
14.In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, this Court observed that every good cause is a sufficient cause and must offer an explanation for non-appearance. The only difference between a "good cause" and "sufficient cause" is that the requirement of a good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of a "sufficient cause". (See also: Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 P.C. 156; Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 1336; and Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953).
15.While deciding whether there is a sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide: State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2306; Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; Davinder Pal Sehgal v. M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 451; Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, AIR 2002 SC 1201; Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand (2005) 10 SCC 127; Srei International Finance Ltd., v. Fair growth Financial Services Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 95; and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises, AIR 2008 SC 2054)."
Mr. Sharma further submits that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2008 and the plaintiff has dragged the petitioner-Society in a litigation. The Society is facing the litigation since last 12 years. Considering the conduct of the plaintiff, the proceedings of the civil suit could not have been restored. He prays for allowing the civil revision and setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 22.8.2026.
Arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner are considered and the documents available on record are perused.
It is not in dispute that due to absence of the plaintiff and his counsel on 24.4.2019, the trial Court dismissed the suit in default. The plaintiff had already engaged the lawyer to appear and attend the date, however the lawyer did not appear in the matter. The plaintiff stated in the application that he was busy in the marriage of his niece and filed an invitation card of the marriage (Ex.P/2). As per Ex.P/2 the marriage of the niece of the plaintiff was scheduled on 25.4.2019. As per Ex.P/3 the marriage functions were started from 20.4.2019. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the plaintiff is not available in the marriage card (Ex.P/2) and, therefore, bogus marriage card (Ex.P/3) was filed by PW-2 Jagdish Parmar. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable as the invitation card (Ex.P/2) has been issued from the side of bridegroom and in that card the name of the plaintiff could not have been reflected as the plaintiff was not attending the marriage from the side of bridegroom. In the marriage card (Ex.P/3) issued from the side of bride, name of the plaintiff is available as uncle (Phoopha) of the bride at B to B part and, therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that Ex.P/3 card later on prepared. Ex.P/3 card was brought by the witness of the plaintiff, whose daughter was married on 25.4.2019, therefore, the said card has been produced from proper custody.
The trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties has held that the plaintiff has satisfactorily explained the reason of absence and the cause assigned by the plaintiff was a sufficient cause and consequently allowed the application.
From perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that detailed cross-examination has been carried out, however nothing material could be brought on record. PW-2 Jagdish Parmar has supported the statement of the plaintiff and has denied that he has prepared any bogus marriage invitation card for the purpose of filing in the court.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default due to absence of the plaintiff and no interference is required under the revisional jurisdiction in this case. Resultantly the admission is declined. Civil revision is dismissed.