2025:HHC:27291 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 47 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.08.2025 Kuldeep Chand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Rasila Ram & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K. S. Banyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Uday Banyal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8. Respondent No. 7 is stated to have died. Bipin Chander Negi , Judge Present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, whereby an application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC, for setting aside an order dated 05.11.2020, passed in Civil Suit No. 115/2011, by the present petitioners, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. In the case at hand, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2019, passed by the Civil 2 2025:HHC:27291 Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 115/2011, titled as Kuldeep Chand & Ors. vs. Rasila Ram & Ors., an appeal had been preferred by the present petitioners, before the Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, Circuit Court, Barsar. 4. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 12.02.2020. On allowing of the appeal, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 03.03.2020. 5. On 03.03.2020, since the Presiding Officer was on maternity leave, therefore, the matter was posted for 09.04.2020 before the Trial Court after remand. Thereafter, again the matter was posted before the Trial Court on 30.07.2020. On the said date, a counsel appeared for the present petitioners before the Trial Court. Subsequent thereto the matter was posted on 05.11.2020. On the said date, none had appeared on behalf of the present petitioners, as a consequence whereof, in terms of provisions of Order 9 of the CPC, the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.11.2020. 6. The application for restoration in terms of Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC was filed by the present petitioners before the Trial Court on 28.03.2022. 7. After completion of pleadings and hearing of the parties, the Trial Court was of the view that since no “sufficient cause” had been shown in the application filed for restoration, 3 2025:HHC:27291 therefore, the same was dismissed. The trial court was also of the view that an application for setting aside order dated 05.11.2020 and for restoration of the civil suit in the case at hand, should have been filed immediately after COVID-19 restrictions had been relaxed. 8. The Apex Court in March, 2020 on account of COVID- 19 had taken suo motu cognizance of the difficulties that were being faced by the litigants with respect to filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws. 9. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the Apex Court judgment delivered on January 10, 2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. 10. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, stood excluded for the purpose of limitation as prescribed under any general law or special laws in respect of judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. A further perusal of the said judgment reflects that in cases where limitations would have expired during the period 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, all persons were entitled to a period of limitation of 90 days from 01.03.2022. 11. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.11.2020. Limitation for filing 4 2025:HHC:27291 an appeal for restoration under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC, fell within the period 15.02.2020 till 28.02.2022 i.e. period excluded for the purposes of limitation by the judgment of the Apex Court. 12. In the said circumstance, individuals like the petitioners, were entitled to a period of 90 days limitation from 01.03.2022 onward. 13. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid position, it is evident that the application filed on 28.03.2022 by the present petitioners for restoration of a suit was well within the period of limitation as prescribed by the Apex Court. The Trial Court has not taken into account the aforesaid position of law. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Civil Suit No. 115/2011, titled as Kuldeep Chand & Ors. vs. Rasila Ram & Ors., is restored. 14. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21.08.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 12th August, 2025 (sanjeev)