1 CGHC010379272019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 101 of 2019 1 - Sharad Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Nandkumar Aged About 45 Years R/o Raniroad, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Girijabai W/o Late Jai Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Raniroad, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Mamta @ Santoshi D/o Late Jai Dewangan Aged About 19 Years R/o Raniroad, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv S/o Late Jai Dewangan Aged About 13 Years No. 03 is Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Girijabai Wd/o Late Jai Dewangan, R/o Raniroad, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Anurag Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 09/09/2026 This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 06/08/2019 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil MJC 2 No.25/2018 by which, the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who happens to be the plaintiff, had filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court seeking for declaration of title in respect of suit property properly described in the plaint. The suit was filed in the year 2017 and was registered as Civil Suit No.18A/17 and was pending consideration before the learned trial Court. He further submits that the counsel engaged by the appellant was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, however, on 25/10/2018, when the matter was listed before the learned trial Court, the counsel could not appear and thus the civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. Later on, on 22/11/2018, an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the appellant stating that his counsel had wrongly noted the date of hearing as 15/11/2018 and the appellant was also informed the date of hearing as 15/11/2018 by his counsel. When the counsel appeared before the learned trial Court on 15/11/2018, he came to know that the civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25/10/2018. He submits that immediately, within the period of limitation, the application for restoration was filed which was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 06/08/2019. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the civil suit was filed in the year 2017. It is not a case that the appellant was negligent in prosecuting his civil suit. Inadvertently, the counsel engaged by him noted wrong hearing date in his diary and thus, neither the appellant nor his counsel could appear on 25/10/2018. Thus, he prays that one opportunity may be granted restoring the Civil Suit No.18A/17. 4. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that wrong date of hearing was noted by the counsel engaged by the appellant. He has not been able to show sufficient cause for non-appearance before the learned trial Court and after considering the entire facts circumstances of the case, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application for restoration of the civil suit. 5. Be that as it may, from the submissions made herein above, it appears that the learned counsel engaged by the appellant had noted wrong date of hearing. Even otherwise, the Courts should not have such technical approach in rejecting the application for restoration of the suit particularly when it has been filed within the 3 period of limitation and also considering that there is nothing available on record to suggest that the appellant was negligent in prosecuting his case. The right of the appellant would be curtailed if the application is not allowed and the appellant may suffer irreparable loss. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for restoration and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06/08/2019 is hereby set aside. The civil suit No.18A/17 is restored to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15/10/2026 and thereafter, the learned trial Court shall proceed ahead with the civil suit and decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for information. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.09.10 17:30:29 +0530