1 CGHC010324642026 2026:CGHC:39573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1135 of 2026 1 - Brij Gopal Tamrakar S/o Late Shri Gandhi Prasad Tamrakar, Aged About 76 Years, R/o. Tamerpara, Dhamdha, Tahsil - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2 - Lalit Tamrakar S/o. Brij Gopal Tamrakar Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Tamerpara, Dhamdha, Tahsil - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3 - Subhash Tamrakar, S/o. Brij Gopal Tamrakar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Tamerpara, Dhamdha, Tahsil - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Vijay Tamrakar S/o. Late Shri Gandhi Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 68 Years, R/o Hatri Bazaar Dhamdha, Thasil - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09-09-2026 1. The matter is listed today for orders on default. 2. On due consideration, the default pointed out by the Registry is overruled and the matter is heard finally. 3. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 16-07-2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhamdha, District Durg in MJC No.09/2025 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.09.16 11:16:44 +0530 2 9 of the CPC is allowed and Civil Suit No.11A/2014 is restored to its original number. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are non-applicants before the learned trial Court where respondent had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of Civil Suit No.11A/2014 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06-03-2025. He would submit that the respondent was negligent in prosecuting his civil suit and remained absent in the proceeding and could not produce his evidence despite granted repeated time to him and ultimately his suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06-03-2025, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC on the ground that he regularly appeared in the proceeding and signed the flying order sheets before the Reader of the court, but the said order sheet was not annexed in the file which shows his absence in the proceeding and ultimately the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and it is afterthought ground taken by the respondent in the application. The explanation of the respondent was not bonafide, yet the learned trial Court allowed the application and the suit has been restored. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as the order sheets of the learned trial Court. 6. The sequence of events, i.e., the respondent had filed the suit which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06-03-2025 and thereafter on 26-06-2025 he made an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the same along with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act explaining the cause of delay, and the same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 16-07-2026 are not in dispute. It is disputed by the petitioners that no sufficient explanation has been offered by the respondent for non-appearance on 06-03- 2025 and for condonation of delay. From the documents annexed with the petition it transpires that the respondent explained in his application that he 3 made his signature in each date of hearing in a flying order sheet which could not be annexed in the case filed thereby he was presumed to be absent in the proceeding. The learned trial Court has considered the explanation submitted by the respondent as plausible explanation and sufficient to condone the delay as the delay is not a lengthy delay and it is not the case that such delay cannot be condoned under the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has also considered that mere technicality should not be come on the way of substantial justice between the parties and by accepting the explanation submitted by the respondent allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of Limitation Act and by condoning the delay the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC was also allowed and the suit has been restored to its original number. 7. After considering the entire material produced in the writ petition and having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC filed by the respondent after condoning the delay in filing the same. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil