Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:22594-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 225 of 2024 --------- Abhay Narayan, aged about 38 years, son of Prasiddh Narayan Yadav, resident of village Jagiya Simra, P.O.-Sripur (Khijarasaray), P.S.-Sripur (Khijarasaray), Dhanbad (Jharkhand), at present residing at Quarter No.C/19, Harina Colony, P.O.-Barora, P.S.-Barora, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … … Appellant Versus Priyanka Kumari, aged about 36 years, wife of Abhay Nayan, daughter of Dr. Chandeshwari Yadav, resident of Sarvoday Maidan, Jandaha, P.O.- Jandaha, P.S.-Jandaha, District-Vaishali (Bihar) … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate ----------- 05/Dated: 08th August, 2025 1. Heard, Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous No.31 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the appellant under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restoration of Original Suit No.103 of 2019, has been rejected. 3. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was prevented in pursuing the suit, which was preferred by him for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on account of Covid-19 situation, which was prevailing in the country, and since he could not produce the witnesses, the suit was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2022. Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:22594-DB 2 4. It has further been submitted that an application for restoration was preferred by the appellant under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC but the learned trial court did not consider the aforesaid aspects in its proper perspective, consequent to which, the same was also dismissed on 20.09.2024, and which is the order impugned to this appeal. 5. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that for a considerable length of time, the appellant did not appear before learned trial court and therefore, learned trial court was correct in dismissing the suit and since frivolour reasons were assigned by the appellant for restoration of the said suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, the application was also correctly decided, which does not require any interference. 6. It appears that on 05.08.2022 on account of the absence of the appellant for a considerable length of time and for not taking proper steps, the suit was dismissed. The suit was preferred by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. 7. There appears to be a plausible reason assigned by the appellant to the effect that due to Covid-19 situation, which was prevailing in the country just prior to the dismissal of the suit, he could not appear and could not produce his witnesses. 8. It further appears that though the suit proceeded ex-parte, but subsequently, the respondent/defendant had appeared but on account of the absence of the appellant, the suit was dismissed for default. 9. The Miscellaneous Application, which was preferred under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of Original Suit No.103 of 2019 was rejected on 20.09.2024 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:22594-DB 3 Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad on the ground that sufficient reason was not shown by the appellant for restoration of the suit. 10. Though, it is not in doubt that the appellant could not produce the evidence for last two years prior to the dismissal of the suit on account of Covid-19 situation, which is a genuine reason, it furthermore appears that the learned court below has not considered the fact that prior to the Covid-19 situation which was prevailing in the country, the appellant had exercised all due diligence in pursuing the suit. 11. This fact has not been taken into consideration by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous No.31 of 2022, and we accordingly set aside the order dated 20.09.2024 and consequently restore Original Suit No.103 of 2019 to its original file. 12. This appeal stands allowed and disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court immediately and forthwith. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/-