1 2026:CGHC:15656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 390 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board Through The Authorized Person Namely S.K. Pandey, S/o B.L. Pandey, Aged About 72 Years, Presently Posted As Legal Officer, Near Collectorate Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sayra Khan W/o Late Abdul Halim Khan Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. 19/46, Mission Hospital Road, Akbar Chwal, Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohammad Fahim Khan S/o Abdul Halim Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 19/46, Mission Hospital Road, Akbar Chwal, Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gram Panchayat Bhadha Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhadha, Pachpedi Mod, Tehsil Masturi, Ps Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhattisgarh State Government Through Collector, Bilaspur, Collector Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.07 18:29:56 +0530 2 6 - Gram Panchayat Bhadha Through Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhadha, Pachpedi Mod, Tehsil Masturi, Ps Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Pragya Vaishnav, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. Present is the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the learned Tenth District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 77/2025, whereby the the Misc. Appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 has been allowed and the Civil Suit No. 367-A/2012 was restored to its original number. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the defendant No.5 before the learned Trial Court. The respondents No. 1 & 2 were prosecuted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit land and also for declaring the registered Waqf Deed dated 20.04.1927 is illegal, null and void and also not binding upon the plaintiff. The said civil suit was fixed for 22.08.2025, however, neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel appeared in the proceeding on that date and the suit was dismissed for want of 3 prosecution. On 25.08.2025, the respondents No. 1 & 2 had filed their application under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.08.2025, the learned Trial court considered the application of the respondents No. 1 & 2 as the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC, however, the learned Trial court dismissed the application of the respondents No. 1 & 2 vide order dated 19.11.2025 holding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the plaintiffs for their non-appearance on the date when the matter was called for hearing. He would also submit that the respondents No. 1 & 2 filed their misc. appeal challenging the order dated 19.11.2025 which was allowed by the learned appellate Court vide its order dated 02.03.2026 and the Civil Suit filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 is restored. 3. He would also submit that the learned appellate Court has not considered the explanation of their non-appearance in its right perspective as the respondents No. 1 & 2 imposes the liability upon the Court itself. When they themselves have made averments in the application that they were knowledge of the date of 22.08.2025 fixed by the learned trial Court and on the date when the plaintiffs appeared before the trial Court in the proceeding, they were informed that the matter is seized with the board and their counsel came back. In the post lunch session, when they again appeared, they came to know that the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, meaning thereby the plaintiffs and their counsel were well aware about the date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court. In absence of the plaintiff or their counsel, the trial Court was not having any option except to dismiss the 4 the suit for want of prosecution. The explanation of the respondents No. 1 & 2 is not sufficient to restore the suit as the suit is pending since 2012, therefore, the plaintiffs are negligent in prosecuting their suit yet, the same has been restored without any sufficient cause, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court may be set aside and the application filed by the respondent No. 1 & 2 may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs’ suit has been dismissed on 22.08.2025 for want of prosecution for which an application for restoration of the suit was filed on 25.08.2025, though, the application was titled under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC, however, the learned trial Court has considered the said application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and has decided the same vide its order dated 19.11.2025, by which the application filed by the respondent No. 1 & 2 was rejected. By considering the application filed by the respondent No. 1 & 2, the learned trial Court has considered the negligency of the plaintiff in prosecuting there case and observed that there is no sufficient reason and explanation shown by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit. In the appeal, the learned appellate Court considered that the explanation of the plaintiffs are sufficient for their non-appearance on the date when the matter was fixed for hearing. Though, it has been objected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffs are thrown the liability upon the Court despite their presence on the earlier occasion, the trial Court has dismissed the suit for want of prosecution but from 5 the order passed by the learned appellate Court, it transpires that they have considered the every aspect of the explanation as well as the proceeding of the trial Court and has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs and restored the suit in its original number. Further, the suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.08.2025 whereas the restoration application has been filed on 25.08.2025 which can not be said to be any delaying tactics or suffer from any delay or for any other reason. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the document annexed with the petition, I do not find any palpable irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned appellate Court restoring the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit