Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, M/s. Timblo Enterprises, a sole proprietary concern, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging an Order dated 20th December 2025 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division-IInd Additional Court, Margao. The impugned order directed that Respondent No. 1's application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) be heard and decided without framing any points of determination, and only on the basis of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, supporting documents, replies, and other material on record. The background of the case involves a Special Civil Suit No. 35/2013/III filed by Respondent No. 1 (original Plaintiff) on 17th May 2013, assailing a Sale Deed dated 21st May 2010 executed between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The Petitioner filed its written statement on 22nd August 2013. On 30th August 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit for non-prosecution due to Respondent No. 1 seeking unnecessary adjournments. On 30th September 2016, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the ex parte dismissal order. The Petitioner filed a reply on 6th October 2017. On 20th January 2018, the Trial Court framed two points for determination pertaining to the restoration application. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 642 of 2018 before the High Court, which was admitted on 26th November 2018 with a stay of proceedings. On 18th August 2022, Respondent No. 1 unconditionally withdrew the writ petition. Thereafter, on 23rd August 2022, Respondent No. 1 made an application before the Trial Court seeking modification/recall of the Order dated 20th January 2018, the same order that was challenged in the withdrawn writ petition. The Petitioner opposed this application. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20th December 2025, directed that the restoration application be heard without framing points of determination. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable in law. It observed that Order XIV Rule 3 CPC mandates the framing of points for determination in all suits and proceedings, including applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. The Court noted that the Trial Court's earlier order dated 20th January 2018 had framed points for determination, and that order had attained finality after the unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition. The subsequent application for modification/recall was an abuse of process. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the restoration application in accordance with law, including framing points for determination as per Order XIV Rule 3 CPC. The Court also deprecated the conduct of Respondent No. 1 in repeatedly delaying proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Suit - Points for Determination - Order IX Rule 9 read with Order XIV Rule 3 CPC - The Trial Court's order directing hearing of a restoration application without framing points of determination was held to be unsustainable as Order XIV Rule 3 CPC mandates the framing of points for determination in all suits and proceedings, including applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. The Court held that the Trial Court must frame points for determination to ensure a focused and fair adjudication. (Paras 1-7) B) Civil Procedure - Recall of Order - Jurisdiction - Order IX Rule 9 CPC - The Respondent No. 1's application for modification/recall of the Order dated 20th January 2018, after unconditional withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 642 of 2018, was held to be an abuse of process. The Court held that the Trial Court could not entertain such an application as the earlier order had attained finality. (Paras 3-6) C) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Order IX Rule 9 CPC - The Respondent No. 1's repeated attempts to delay proceedings by filing multiple applications and withdrawing writ petitions was deprecated. The Court held that such conduct amounts to abuse of the process of law. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court could direct the hearing of an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC without framing points for determination, and whether such an order is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned Order dated 20th December 2025, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC in accordance with law, including framing points for determination as per Order XIV Rule 3 CPC.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 9 CPC
- Order XIV Rule 3 CPC
- Order XIV Rule 1 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Points for Determination
- Restoration of Suit
- Ex parte Decree
- Civil Procedure Code 1908
