Restoration of Civil Suit: A Supreme Court Ruling on Procedural Fairness

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a ruling in the case of Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia v. Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya & Anr. regarding the restoration of a civil suit that had been dismissed for default. This case highlights the principles of procedural fairness and the duty of courts to ensure justice is not denied due to procedural lapses.

The case originated from Civil Suit No. 217 of 1994 filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration and injunction regarding a property dispute. The suit was dismissed for default on November 6, 2008, as the plaintiff failed to appear in court. The appellant-plaintiff promptly filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration on December 4, 2008. However, this application was also dismissed by the trial court on July 21, 2011, on the ground that the plaintiff was allegedly absent continuously, signaling a lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The plaintiff had been present for most of the hearings, but the case was not taken up due to court workload.
• The application for restoration was filed within the limitation period.
• The absence on the final hearing date was not intentional.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The trial court had justifiably dismissed the suit due to repeated non-appearance of the plaintiff.
• The restoration plea lacked merit as it did not demonstrate sufficient cause for absence.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the appellant had been present on multiple occasions. The trial court’s reasoning that the plaintiff was absent continuously was incorrect. The High Court also erred in affirming this order. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be applied so rigidly as to deny justice. The restoration application was allowed, and the suit was reinstated.

Verbatim Observations of the Court:

“The appellant-plaintiff was present in almost all hearings before the Trial Court which indicates that he was genuinely pursuing the matter. The appellant-plaintiff having filed the suit for declaration and injunction ought to be given an opportunity to pursue his suit.”

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and provide adequate opportunity to both parties.

Petitioner Name: Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia.
Respondent Name: Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Surat, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 09-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kusumben Indersinh D vs Sudhaben Biharilalji Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-01-2019.pdf