Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Abhishek Finlease Ltd., filed a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 2037 of 1998. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of ₹10,02,500/- along with interest at 18% per annum and for a decree directing the defendants to transfer the name of the plaintiff in the records of Defendant No.3 Association. The factual matrix reveals that the plaintiff and the company of Defendant No.2, wherein Defendant No.2 was a Director, had commercial relations and financial transactions. Defendant No.1 is the real sister of Defendant No.2, and both had availed a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- at 18% per annum from the appellant company. Defendant No.1 executed an agreement dated 27.08.1996, and Defendant No.2 executed a promissory note dated 27.08.1996, confirming the loan. Defendant No.1 was in possession of Office No.402, Wall Street, 4th Floor, Opposite Orient Club, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, which was under Defendant No.3 (NTC). Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had obtained possession of the office on 12.08.1996 and later handed over possession to the plaintiff along with documents. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution on 29.07.2025. The appellant argued that the dismissal was erroneous as the suit was of 1998 and the plaintiff had been diligently pursuing the matter. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Trial Court had not considered the long pendency of the suit and the fact that the plaintiff had appeared on previous dates. The Court held that the dismissal for default was not justified and that the appellant had sufficient cause for non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2025 were set aside, and the suit was restored to its original number. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The civil application for stay also stood disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Default - Order 9 Rule 8 CPC - Restoration of Suit - The appellant-plaintiff's suit for recovery of money was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.07.2025. The appellant contended that the dismissal was erroneous as the suit was of 1998 and the plaintiff had been diligently pursuing the matter. The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have considered the long pendency and the fact that the plaintiff had appeared on previous dates, and thus set aside the dismissal and restored the suit to its original number. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for non-prosecution and whether the appellant had sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 2037 of 1998 is set aside. The suit is restored to its original number. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The civil application for stay also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 8 CPC
- Restoration of Suit
- Dismissal for Default
- Sufficient Cause
