1 2026:CGHC:6618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 174 of 2022 1 - Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Sant Lal Agrawal Aged About 69 Years Presently (At That Relevant Time R/o Kotara Road, Vikas Nagar, Raigarh) Presently Residing At Friends Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Deleted (Smt. Jamuna Devi Verma) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 21-11- 204. 2 - Madan Mohan Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Aged About 61 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Sarita, D/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Aged About 58 Years R/o Delhi Najbgarh, Delhi. 4 - Pradeep Kumar Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Aged About 56 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Rajkumar Verma, S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Aged About 54 Years R/o Kotara Road,sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Manoj Pranjpe Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 05.02.2026 HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.03.03 18:41:49 +0530 2 1. The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has called in question the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class- I, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in MJC Civil No. 11/2018. By the said order, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act of 1963”) was allowed and the delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) was condoned. The said application was preferred by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 seeking restoration of Civil Suit No. 206A/2002 which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.11.2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 5 and deceased respondent No. 1 Smt. Jamuna Devi Verma had instituted a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, which is duly described in the plaint. The suit was filed in the year 2002 and remained pending for several years. On 17.11.2015, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for restoration under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was filed on 08.05.2018 after a considerable delay of about two and a half years. Though an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 was filed seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 failed to establish sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. The application was opposed by the present petitioner by filing a reply; however, the learned Civil Judge by the impugned order, condoned the delay. It is further submitted that the learned Civil Judge failed to appreciate that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit was filed in the year 2002 and remained pending for a long period. On several dates, the counsel for the plaintiffs had appeared before the trial Court though on some occasions appearance could not be marked. On the date when the suit was dismissed, it was listed for consequential amendment and not for hearing. It is submitted that the plaintiffs being lay persons were dependent upon their counsel and were under the bona fide impression that their case was being properly attended to. On account of the absence of counsel on the relevant date, the suit came to be dismissed. Immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the dismissal and after obtaining the certified copies of necessary documents, the application for restoration was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. It is further contended that the provisions relating to limitation ought to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. Mere length of delay cannot be a decisive factor what is material is the existence of sufficient cause. In deserving cases, even a long delay can be condoned. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the reasons assigned, found sufficient cause and allowed the application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted in the year 2002 and was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.11.2015. From the order sheets placed on record, it appears that on many occasions the counsel for the plaintiffs had entered appearance, though on certain dates appearance was not marked. On the date of dismissal, the matter was listed for consequential amendment. 6. The learned Civil Judge has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs were not aware of the listing of the suit on the relevant date and that they were 4 prosecuting the matter through their counsel. The Court below has also taken note of the fact that the suit had been transferred from one Court to another on several occasions. 7. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore reported in AIR 1988 SC 897 the learned Civil Judge held that the reasons assigned by the respondent no. 2 to 5 constitute sufficient cause for consolidation of delay. Accordingly, the delay was condoned. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Civil Judge has exercised discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled principles of law. No perversity, illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error is demonstrated so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari