-1- 2025:CGHC:16540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 85 of 2020 Jaideep Makan S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Makan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Main Market Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Chairman, Municipal Council Kirandul Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WP227 No. 88 of 2020 Jaideep Makan S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Makan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Main Market Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Chairman, Municipal Council, Kirandul Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Kirandul, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions seeking restoration of a civil suits bearing Case No. 2-B/2002 & 1-B/2002 which were dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Dantewada. 2) Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suits filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the learned trial Court on 13.11.2017 for want of prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear on that date. He would further submit that the petitioner filed applications under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) on 12.12.2017 for restoration of the suits. However, the learned trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner failed to assign sufficient reasons for his non-appearance. Thereafter, a miscellaneous appeals -3- under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC were preferred, but the learned appellate Court dismissed on the ground of maintainability; thus, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned orders and restoration of the suits to their original numbers. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeals, as no appeals lies against the rejection of applications under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, thus, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused orders impugned. 5) It appears that both the civil suits filed by the petitioner were dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.11.2017. Thereafter, applications for restoration under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC were filed on 12.12.2017 i.e. within 30 days from the date of dismissal. The petitioner pleaded that he was unable to appear due to a medical emergency of his father, who was taken to Visakhapatnam. However, he could not produce any supporting documents in this regard, which led to the rejection of the applications by the trial -4- Court. 6) It appears that the learned trial Court adopted a hyper-technical approach while rejecting the applications for restoration. 7) The learned appellate Court rightly held that the appeals against the rejection of applications under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC is not maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. However, in the interest of justice, and considering the reasons assigned in the applications moved by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the said applications in both civil suits. Accordingly, the applications under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC are hereby allowed. The civil suits are restored to their original numbers, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to the defendant in both cases. 8) As a result, both writ petitions are hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim