1 2025:CGHC:16236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 310 of 2025 1. Romnath S/o Late Butiram Aged About 50 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Loknath S/o Late Butiram Aged About 46 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Rama Bai D/o Late Butiram Aged About 60 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Prembati D/o Late Butiram Aged About 56 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Jemabati D/o Late Butiram Aged About 54 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Bhanumati W/o Late Butiram Aged About 79 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Defendants) ... Petitioners Versus 1. Chhanuram S/o Late Baalsingh Aged About 62 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Narsingh S/o Late Baalsingh Aged About 50 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 3. Shivnarayan S/o Late Baalsingh Aged About 48 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 4. Dayaram S/o Late Baalsingh Aged About 60 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 5. Kanhaiya S/o Late Baalsingh Aged About 45 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Sona Bai W/o Late Jagannath Aged About 52 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 7. Bhupendra S/o Late Jagannath Aged About 29 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 8. Bhuneshwari D/o Late Jagannath Aged About 27 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 9. Hemant S/o Late Jagannath Aged About 23 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10. Kumari Anita D/o Late Jagannath Aged About 24 Years R/o Hikmipara Dalpat Sagar Ward Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs) 11. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 12. Tahsildar, Tehsil Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents No. 11 & 12/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. The petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 6 have filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned 2nd District Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/2024 dated 12.03.2025, whereby the said Misc. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 10 has been allowed and the order passed by the Court of learned 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division Bastar, Place Jagdalpur dated 05.11.2024 has been set aside. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants before the trial Court. On 05.01.2024 neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel appeared before the learned trial Court, therefore, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC before the learned trial Court on 10.01.2024. The application was replied to by the defendants. 3 3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 05.11.2024 rejected the application moved by the plaintiffs on the ground that sufficient cause has not been assigned. The plaintiffs preferred a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC before the learned 2nd District Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/2024. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 12.03.2025 set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 05.11.2024, allowed the application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC and restored the case to its original number. The petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 6 have challenged the said order by filing this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the civil suit was fixed for hearing before the learned trial Court on 05.01.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiffs and the case was adjourned for 05.01.2024. He would contend that on that date also no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, therefore, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. He would further submit that the plaintiffs failed to assign sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 05.01.2024, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. He would contend that the learned Appellate Court taking a liberal approach, allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Court on 12.03.2025. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court would show that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC 4 was moved within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.11.2024 and the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC was moved on 10.01.2024. The plaintiffs in the application categorically stated that the counsel engaged by them failed to appear, therefore, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is a well settled principle of law that the litigants cannot be penalized for the mistakes committed by an Advocate. The learned Appellate Court taking a liberal view set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 05.11.2024. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti