1 CGHC010208342018 2026:CGHC:29913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 54 of 2018 1 - Ravindra Dongre S/o Late Narayan Dongre Aged About 52 Years R/o Kalkapara, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Civil And Revenue District- Rajnandgaon..........(Plaintiff). ... Appellant versus 1 - Ajay Sahu S/o Late Bhuwan Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Mandhar, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.........(Defendant). 2 - Sandeep Sahu (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated-07-11- 2024. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant For Respondent No.3/State : : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.07.17 10:58:54 +0530 2 under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), challenging the impugned order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the First Upper District Judge, Raipur (CG) in MJC No.62/2018. By the said order, the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by appellant-plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and, consequently, dismissed the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the civil suit 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of civil suit (Ravindra Dongre vs. Bhuwan Lal Sahu and Others), which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.01.2008. The said application was registered as MJC No.62/2018. After providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned First Upper District Judge, Raipur declined to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. Consequently, the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was also rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that earlier civil suit (Ravindra Dongre vs. Bhuwan Lal Sahu & Others) was pending consideration before the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the 10th Additional District Judge, Raipur. After aforesaid transfer, despite making diligent efforts, the appellant-plaintiff was unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the case. He also filed an 3 application in the record room seeking inspection of record; however, no information was received either by the record room or through the daily diary of the Court. Thereafter, on the basis of information obtained from the daily diary, the appellant again applied for inspection of the record. Upon inspecting the record on 03.05.2010, he came to know for the first time that the civil suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.01.2008. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant filed an application for certified copy of the order on 04.05.2010, which was supplied on 12.05.2010. Thereafter, on 14.05.2010, the appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing restoration application. He further submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but bona fide. Despite this, the learned First Upper District Judge, Raipur refused to condone the delay, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Hence, he prays that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned order dated 02.05.2018 be set aside, the delay in filing restoration application be condoned, and the learned 10th Additional District Judge be directed to restore the said civil suit. 5. Notice issued to Respondent No.1 has been returned unserved. 6. As per the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and the contents of the restoration application filed by the appellant- plaintiff, the civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4 21.01.2008. Although restoration of the said suit has been sought, neither the number of the civil suit nor the date on which it was transferred from the Court of the First Additional District Judge to the Court of the 10th Additional District Judge has been mentioned in the application. The principal ground urged for condonation of delay is that, after the transfer of the suit from one Court to another, the appellant-plaintiff was unable to ascertain the Court in which the case was pending. According to the appellant, he came to know only on 03.05.2010 that the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.01.2008. Even if the appellant was unable to obtain information regarding the pendency of the case, he ought to have approached the District Judge for the requisite information. However, he failed to do so. In both the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the restoration application, it has been stated that, after obtaining information from the Court of the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Raipur, the appellant applied for a certified copy on 22.05.2009, but the same could not be obtained. Ultimately, he inspected the record of the civil suit on 03.05.2010, whereafter he applied for and obtained the certified copy. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, {(2013) 12 SCC 649}, has observed in paragraphs 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) as under: “21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party 5 relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance or justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.” 8. A perusal of the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as in the restoration application shows that the appellant-plaintiff himself remained oblivious to the status of the case. Significantly, he has not even disclosed the date on which the case was transferred from the Court of the First Additional District Judge to the Court of the 10th Additional District Judge. 9. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the appellant-plaintiff has failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than two years in filing the restoration application. Accordingly, no perversity or illegality is found in the impugned order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the First Upper District Judge, Raipur in MJC No.62/2018. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 10. The original record of the Court below be returned forthwith. 6 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar