2025:JHHC:15193 --1-- C.M.P. No. 131 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 131 of 2024 ---- Shila Mishra, aged about 51 years, wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, resident of Satyam Nagar, Near Vaishali Hotel, Barwa Road, P.O. & P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad. .... Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant -- Versus -- Mala Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Burnwal, resident of Sahyogi Nagar, Sector-2, Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S. – Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad-828127. .... Respondent/Applicant/Plaintiff ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate ---- 04/12.06.2025 Heard Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the sole-opposite party, who is appearing on instruction of Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel on the record. 2. This C.M.P. has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No.41 of 2023 (Arising out of Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 by which the learned Court has been pleased to allow the recalling the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 and the said Misc. Case was restored to its original file subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-. 3. Ms. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein instituted Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 for seeking enforcement of judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 2025:JHHC:15193 --2-- C.M.P. No. 131 of 2024 signed on 11.11.2016 in Title Suit No.52 of 2008. The plaintiff (respondent herein) has filed the said suit against the defendant- respondent for relief in the nature of Specific Performance of Contract dated 15.12.2005, the said suit was decreed by the judgment dated 06.10.2016 directing therein to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/applicant (respondent herein), in respect of land and thereafter, the said Misc. Case has been filed for enforcement of judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 decree signed on 11.11.2016. She further submits that in terms of the said judgment and decree, the respondent (herein) was directed to deposit the remaining consideration amount of Rs.21,000/- which was paid through e-challan to the respondent/defendant on 25.05.2022 and the plaintiff was directed to file the draft-deed before the learned Court but the draft-deed was not filed before the learned Court within time and in view of that the said Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 was dismissed for default vide order dated 31.03.2023. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Case No.41 of 2023 was filed on 02.05.2023 before the learned Court for restoration of Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 to its original file which was allowed. She submits that on notice, the petitioner herein is appeared before the learned Court. However, the learned Court has allowed the restoration. She further submits that the dismissal order was dated 31.03.2023, whereas the restoration petition was filed on 02.05.2023 and the learned Court has allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2023. On these grounds she submits that the said impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole-opposite party oppose 2025:JHHC:15193 --3-- C.M.P. No. 131 of 2024 the prayer and submit that the compliance of the order/ judgment of the learned Court was already been made, even Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One Thousand) was deposited through the e-challan. However, due to some inadvertence within time the draft-deed was not presented before the Court and in view of that, the same was dismissed. However, within limitation period, the restoration petition was filed which has been allowed by the learned Court considering the spirit of C.P.C as well as law of limitation. He submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. It is an admitted position that the suit decreed in favour of the respondent-herein and for implementation of the said judgment Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 was instituted and further even the Rs.21,000/- was deposited by the e-challan in the light of the order dated 09.05.2022 of the learned Court. However, inadvertently, the draft-deed was not deposited with in time and in view of that the said Misc. Case was dismissed on 31.03.2023 and on 02.05.2023 itself the restoration petition was filed which has been allowed by the learned Court. Learned Court while allowing the said petition has considered all these aspects and has come to the conclusion that the Court should adopt justice oriented approach while deciding application under Order 9 of Rule 9 of C.P.C., and in view of that the learned Court has restored the Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 to its original file. 6. The words “sufficient cause” appearing in Rule 4, Order 9, C.P.C. should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor want of bona fide is imputable to the party. Sufficient cause must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party 2025:JHHC:15193 --4-- C.M.P. No. 131 of 2024 and will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. What has been discussed hereinabove the remaining amount has also been deposited by way of e-challan, the restoration petition has been filed just after dismissal which has been allowed by the learned Court. Considering that the court is required to take a lenient view if sufficient cause is made out and in view of that the said order has been passed. 7. In the above background and further the facts and reasons the Court finds there is no illegality in the impugned order and as such this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) S.Das/