HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- CM (M) No.18/2025 Kamal Bhugol …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate Vs Krishan Chand & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. R K S Thakur, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (22.08.2025) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby an appeal against order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned Munsiff (Sub Registrar, Jammu) has been allowed and delay in filing restoration application as also the restoration application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff has been allowed. 2. It appears that respondent No.1 plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioners and proforma respondents before the Court of learned Munsiff (Sub-Registrar, Jammu) which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on Serial No. 85 2 CM (M) No.18/2025 24.08.2015.It further appears that the respondent/plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit on 18.02.2016 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. Both these applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court in terms of order dated 14.03.2023. The said order came to be challenged by respondent No.1/plaintiff by way of an appeal before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, who vide impugned order, allowed both the applications of respondent No.1/plaintiff and restored the suit to its original number. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court by way of present proceedings invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds that the order is against the facts and the law. It has been contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff has miserably failed to demonstrate any valid ground in support of his case for seeking condonation of delay and that he had remained negligent in prosecuting his suit before the learned Trial Court. It has been further submitted that learned Trial Court had properly evaluated the facts and the material on record and only thereafter a well-reasoned order 3 CM (M) No.18/2025 dated 14.03.2023 came to be passed. It has also been contended that it was not open to the learned Appellate Court to not only condone the delay in filing the restoration application but also to allow the restoration application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records of the case. 5. Before proceeding to analyse the facts of the case, it has to be kept in mind that the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the High Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot sit as a Court of appeal against the order of inferior Court. It is only in case a grave illegality, has been committed by inferior Court which has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice, that the High Court would step in to exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction. Errors of law or even errors of fact cannot form a ground to interfere with orders of the inferior Courts while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction. 6. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now analyse the facts of the present case. In the application 4 CM (M) No.18/2025 for condonation of delay and application for restoration of the suit, the plaintiff had pleaded that the junior counsel Sh. Ronak Singh, Advocate was under the impression that the High Court had stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court and had summoned the record from the Trial Court, due to which, he did not appear in the case. It has also been pleaded in the application for restoration/condonation of delay before the trial Court that another junior counsel Sh. Dheeraj Singh, Advocate upon searching the brief of the case in the office, found that there were no dates in the pending file after 07.07.2015. This was noticed by the said counsel on 14.02.2016, whereafter he enquired from the Court and came to know that the suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.08.2015. 7. Thus, the contention of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he was under a bona fide impression that the file had been sent to the High Court, as such, his counsel did not appear on the date when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution and it was only because of this bona fide impression that he could not file the application for restoration of the suit within the prescribed time. 5 CM (M) No.18/2025 8. It is clear from the pleadings and assertions made by plaintiff before the Trial Court that specific details have been given by him as to the reasons for the delay in filing the restoration application. The reason as to why the counsel could not appear on the date when the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution has also been spelled out. These reasons have been found to be satisfactory by learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. 9. The matter regarding condonation of delay in filing a particular proceeding lies entirely within the discretion of the Court dealing with the same. Once discretion in this regard has been exercised by an inferior Court, the High Court would be loathed to interfere while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court cannot substitute its own view in place of the view expressed by the inferior Court in such discretionary matters unless there is a manifest perversity in the view taken by the inferior Court. 10. In the present case, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality much less gross illegality having been committed by the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal and passing the impugned order. 6 CM (M) No.18/2025 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 22.08.2025 Sneha