1 2026:CGHC:6047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 90 of 2025 1 - Devnarayan S/o Late Chatur Ram, Aged 72 Years, R/o Beejapur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Ramnarayan Netam S/o Late Chatur Ram, Aged 64 Years, R/o. E-4 New Hospital Campus, District Hospital Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Rambai Netam, Widow Of Late Tilakram Netam, Aged 65 Years R/o Haditola, P.H.N. 104, R.N.M. And Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Khilesh Netam S/o. Late Tilakram Netam, Aged 35 Years R/o Haditola, P.H.N. 104, R.N.M. And Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Gaganjeet Netam S/o Late Tilakram Netam, Aged 30 Years, R/o Haditola, P.H.N. 104, R.N.M. And Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) … Applicants(s) versus 1 Khilawan S/o Late Pyarelal Aged About 45 Years 2 - Smt. Indira Bai, Widow Of Late Pyarelal, Aged About 48 Years 3 - Smt. Devki Bai (Died And Deleted) ) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-12- 2025 4 - Padum Lal S/o Late Radhelal, Aged About 38 Years, SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 5 - Kishore Kumar S/o Late Radhelal, Aged About 30 Years 6 - Bhajan Lal S/o Late Radhelal, Aged About 23 Years 7 - Smt. Indu Bai, Widow Of Late Seetaram, Aged 50 Years 8 - Meenabai D/o Late Seetaram, Aged 25 Years 9 - Govardhan S/o Shri Dularwa, Aged 56 Years Respondents 1 to 9 are R/o Haditola, P.H.N. 104, R.N.M. And Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Rajnandgaon. 11 - Champa Bai W/o Shri Krishna, Aged 68 Years, R/o. Maanjitola, Post Jadutola, Tahsil And PS Ambagarh Chowki District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 12 - Khemwantin Bai W/o Shri Suresh Mandloyee, Aged 60 Years, R/o. Primary Health Centre Arjuni, Tahsil Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicants : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondents 1 & 9 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/02/2026 3 1. This Revision is directed against the impugned order dated 4.3.2025 passed in Civil MJC No.11/2022 by the Principal District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG). By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking restoration of Civil Suit No.41- A/2012, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. Necessary facts, as projected by the applicants/plaintiffs, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the suit properties and for the mesne profit. The plaintiffs averred that they trace their lineage to a common ancestor namely Mayaram, who was survived by three sons namely Dularva, Chatur Singh and Pila Singh. It is stated that Pila Singh embraced asceticism, renounced the world and became a Sanyasi sometime in 1970; however, Pila Singh was survived by his wife Sukhbati Bai. It was further averred that the said Dularva also died 22 years ago and his wife Sumran also died. Dularva was survived by five sons, and his legal heirs as of the relevant date have been arrayed as defendants No. 01 to 09. It was also averred that Chatur Singh had also passed away in the year 1999, leaving behind three sons, three daughters and his wife Vasnin Bai. Subsequently, Vasnin Bai also died in the year 2001. Thus, plaintiffs 01 to 03 are the sons of late Chatur Singh and plaintiff No.4 is the widow of late Pila Singh. The daughters of Chatur Singh have been arrayed as defendants as defendants 11 to 13. The plaintiffs further averred that defendants 1 to 9 fraudulently and unilaterally caused the revenue records regarding 4 the suit properties to be altered or mutated. It is contended despite these changes, no actual partition occurred between the parties and they continue to remain joint owners of the suit properties. The plaintiffs further averred that out of the total 177.85 acres of land, plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to a 1/3rd share (59 acres); likewise plaintiff No.4 is entitled to a 1/3rd share ( 59 acres) and defendants 1 to 9 are entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share (59 acres) jointly. Consequently, the concerned plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, partition and possession of their respective shares. The plaintiffs further claimed mesne profit in the amount of Rs.50,000/- and additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The aforesaid suit was duly registered as Civil Suit No.41-A/2012 and notices were issued to the defendants, which was pending before the District Judge, Rajnandgaon. On 21.08.2017, the Court directed that notices be issued to the plaintiffs to ascertain their interest in pursuing the matter and the case was posted on 05.09.2017. However, on the said date, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of the parties. Subsequent to the dismissal of the aforesaid Civil Suit, the plaintiffs had preferred an application for restoration of the Civil Suit, which was registered as Civil MJC No. 29/2021. However, the said MJC was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.12.2021. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of the subject suit as well as an application 5 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was registered as Civil MJC No.11/2022. It was averred in the application that the plaintiffs were misled into believing that the dispute would be resolved amicably and they were effectively coerced into not pursuing the suit, which led to its dismissal for non-prosecution. Furthermore, the applicants have shown sufficient cause for the delay in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the trial Court vide the impugned order dismissed Civil MJC No.11/2022. Hence, this Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the suit for declaration, partition and possession, along with mesne profits, was filed on 26.8.2003 and has been regularly prosecuted by the plaintiffs. On 2.8.2017, the plaintiffs prayed that the matter be listed before the Lok Adalat as there is a possibility of settlement between the parties. Consequently, the plaintiffs were directed to appear for settlement and continue prosecuting the matter diligently, failing which, the case would be closed. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 5.9.2017, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants appeared; accordingly, the matter was passed over. Later on, when the matter was called again at 3:00 p.m., the parties remained unrepresented. Looking to the fact that the matter had been pending since 2003 and concluding that the parties were not diligently prosecuting the case, the concerned Court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. He submits that the plaintiffs subsequently filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, stating that their non- 6 appearance was on account of a bonafide mistake. The plaintiffs were under an impression that as the matter had been referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement, their presence was not required before the regular trial Court on the specific date. Hence, their non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate. He further submits that the defendants also failed to appear before the concerned Court and as such, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The above dismissal did not come to the plaintiffs’ knowledge for a considerable period. Upon belatedly receiving information regarding dismissal, the plaintiffs preferred Civil MJC No.29/2021 for restoration. However, the said MJC was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.12.2021. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved a further application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was registered as Civil MJC No.11/2022. However, the trial Court dismissed the said MJC on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to properly prosecute the original suit for partition and mesne profits. The trial Court further observed that the first restoration application was filed after a delay of 4 years and was also dismissed for want of prosecution, which ultimately led to filing of the current application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and subsequent restoration application was filed belatedly and similarly dismissed, however, such procedural dismissal should 7 not stand in the way of substantial justice. He submits that the technicalities should not come in the way of justice to litigants and while condoning the delay in such matters, a lenient view should be adopted to ensure complete justice between the parties. In support of his submissions, learned counsel would place reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme in the matters of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Amruddin Ansari Vs. Afajal Ali, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 912, to submit that the delay in prosecution or presence of certain laches should not be used to penalise the litigant, rather a lenient approach ought to be adopted to ensure administration of complete justice. He further submits that the suit is for partition and at an earlier stage, the parties had agreed to a compromise. Therefore, it is prayed that the suit be restored so that it may be decided either on the basis of the said compromise or on merits; otherwise, the rights of the parties will be jeoparadized by mere technicalities. Learned counsel further submis that the plaintiffs are willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court for the restoration of the suit. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that from a perusal of the subject applications in their entirety, and considering the delay and laches on the part of the plaintiffs, it appears that they did not have any bonafide reason for their non-appearance. Firstly, they failed to file a proper application for the restoration of the suit within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, even when the notices 8 were issued in the second application for restoration, they did not comply with the orders of the Court. He submits that the subsequent application, filed after repeated defaults, cannot be legally sustained. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that an order cannot be passed in favour of a party who is not vigilant and has slept over their rights by failing to diligently contest both the original suit and the earlier MJC proceeding for restoration. Consequently, the current MJC was rightly dismissed by the trial Court and no lenient view should be taken for restoration of the suit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, the conduct of the applicants/plaintiffs does not appear to be bonafide. The applicant has been negligent in prosecuting the case; despite being granted repeated opportunities to contest the suit, he failed to appear before the concerned Court even when the matter had reached the stage of compromise. In view of these circumstances, the trial Court has dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. Furthermore, Civil MJC No.29/2021 was filed for restoration of the suit after a substantial delay of four years. Though the Court directed the plaintiffs to pay the process fee, but they did not comply with the said order. Consequently, the said MJC was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.12.2021. Subsequently, a second MJC (Civil MJC No.11/2022) was filed for restoration, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. While all these 9 facts demonstrate that the plaintiffs were not vigilant in prosecuting their case, the Court must consider the nature of the suit, which is for partition and mesne profits. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a lenient approach should generally be adopted while considering applications under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC to ensure substantial justice on merits. However, as the plaintiffs conduct in the present case suggests a propensity for delay, this Court, while setting aside the impugned order, deems it appropriate to impose certain conditions to ensure that no further defaults occur, thereby affording one final opportunity to the plaintiffs. 10. Consequently, the impugned order regarding dismissal of Civil MJC No.11/2022 (under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC) seeking restoration of Civil Suit No.41-A/2012, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, is set-aside. Accordingly, Civil Suit No.41- A/2012 is restored to its origin al number subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.5000/- by the plaintiffs to the defendants. This restoration shall be further subject to regular appearance of the plaintiffs in the proceedings. 11. It is made clear that no adjournments shall be granted to the plaintiffs by the trial Court unless an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is filed for consideration. Furthermore, the trial Court shall not grant the plaintiffs more than five adjournments, in total, and such adjournments must be based on plausible and 10 sufficient reasons shown. If the plaintiffs commit even a single further default, the concerned Court shall dismiss the suit in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay