Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a group of civil applications filed by Lekhraj M. Solanki and Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki, the original plaintiffs, seeking restoration of several civil revision applications that were dismissed for default. The respondents in each case were tenants or occupants of sheds in Rajaram Wadi, Bandra. The background involves eviction disputes between the landlords (applicants) and the tenants (respondents). The civil revision applications (CRA Nos. 137 to 142 of 2008) were filed by the tenants against eviction orders, but the applicants (landlords) were the respondents in those revisions. The civil applications (CA Nos. 603 to 608 of 2010) were filed by the landlords seeking restoration of the civil revision applications that were dismissed for non-prosecution. The facts indicate that on the date of hearing, the applicants and their advocate were absent, and the advocate had reported 'no instructions'. The court dismissed the revisions for default. The applicants then filed these applications for restoration, claiming that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. The legal issues centered on whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for their non-appearance. The applicants argued that they had instructed their advocate but the advocate failed to appear. The respondents contended that the applicants were negligent and did not pay costs previously imposed. The court analyzed the explanations and found them unsatisfactory. The court noted that the applicants did not provide any concrete evidence of their efforts to contact the advocate or any reason for their own absence. The court also observed that costs had been imposed as a condition for restoration, which were not paid. The court held that no sufficient cause was made out and dismissed all the civil applications. The decision was against the applicants (landlords) and in favor of the respondents (tenants). The ratio decidendi is that for restoration of a suit dismissed for default, the applicant must show sufficient cause for non-appearance, and mere allegations against the advocate without corroboration are insufficient.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Suit - Order IX Rule 9 CPC - Sufficient Cause - Applicants failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing; their advocate reported no instructions - The court held that the explanation for non-appearance was not satisfactory and no sufficient cause was shown - Restoration applications were dismissed (Paras 1-10). B) Civil Procedure - Costs - Condition for Restoration - The court had imposed costs as a condition for restoration, which were not paid - The court noted that the applicants did not comply with the cost order, further justifying dismissal of restoration applications (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants (original plaintiffs) made out sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date of hearing to warrant restoration of the suits dismissed for default.
Final Decision
All civil applications (CA Nos. 603 to 608 of 2010) are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Restoration of dismissed suit
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Order IX Rule 9 CPC
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Costs as condition for restoration
