Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Nakul Arun Jagjivan and Nayan Arun Jagjivan, filed summary suits against Ram V. Tyagrajan and another defendant, claiming recovery of sums paid as sureties under a contract of guarantee. The suits sought approximately Rs. 2.91 crores and Rs. 2.58 crores respectively. After unconditional leave to defend was granted, issues were framed on 3rd July 2014, and the plaintiffs were directed to file affidavits of evidence and documents by 13th August 2014. The plaintiffs failed to comply, and despite a further extension of two weeks granted on 2nd September 2014, they again defaulted. On 5th November 2014, the court dismissed both suits for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs then filed notices of motion seeking recall of the dismissal order and restoration of the suits. In their supporting affidavits, the plaintiffs explained that they were Non-Resident Indians residing in Dubai, required to maintain their NRI status by staying outside India for over 182 days a year, and had extensive business travel commitments. They submitted that these factors prevented timely compliance. The court found the explanation to be sufficient cause for non-compliance, but noted the repeated defaults. Consequently, the court allowed the motions, set aside the dismissal order, and restored the suits to the board, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 per suit to the defendants. The plaintiffs were directed to file their affidavits of evidence and documents within two weeks from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Suit - Dismissal for Want of Prosecution - Sufficient Cause - Plaintiffs, NRIs residing in Dubai, failed to file affidavit of evidence and documents despite multiple extensions - Court dismissed suits for want of prosecution - Plaintiffs sought restoration explaining their travel commitments and NRI status - Held that the explanation constituted sufficient cause for non-compliance, but costs of Rs. 25,000 per suit were imposed as a condition for restoration (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dismissing the summary suits for want of prosecution should be recalled and the suits restored, given the plaintiffs' explanation for non-compliance with court directions.
Final Decision
Notices of Motion allowed. Order dated 5th November 2014 dismissing Summary Suit No.2822 of 2010 and Summary Suit No.2823 of 2010 is set aside. Both suits restored to the board subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 per suit to the defendants. Plaintiffs to file affidavits of evidence and documents within two weeks from today.
Law Points
- Restoration of suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Sufficient cause for non-compliance
- Imposition of costs as condition for restoration
