Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 26 MISC SCJ 48/24 RENU SAXENA Vs. ASHISH GOYAL AND
ORS.
06.05.2025
Matter taken up physically as well as through VC.
Present: Mr. V.K. Ravi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, appearing
through VC.
Applicant with ld. Proxy Counsel Mr. Iftikhar Mohammad.
Ms. Trishma Kashyap, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the non-
applicant Ashish Goel.
None on behalf of the non-applicants, namely, Ketan and
Saumya.
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION U/O IX RULE 9 CPC
& U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT.
1. Arguments heard on the application filed under Order IX
Rule 9 CPC on behalf of the applicant, i.e., plaintiff. The present
application has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2023. It is
submitted that on 13.07.2015, stay was granted by the Court in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On 14.04.2019, the plaintiff
tendered her affidavit by way of evidence and her cross-examination
was deferred for 07.08.2019. Then the matter was referred to Mediation
and it was pending for settlement for a long period of time. On
18.09.2023, the Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is stated that
the application for restoration could not be filed on time as the plaintiff
is a senior citizen and mediation proceedings were pending for a long
CS No. 48/24 Renu Saxena Vs. Ashish Goyal & Ors. Page No. 1/3
-- 1 of 3 --
time. In this background, the present restoration application has been
filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Reply filed by the defendants is on record. It is submitted that the
application is not maintainable being filed beyond the statutory period,
i.e., 30 days from the date of dismissal of the suit. It is stated that there
is gross negligence and delay of 296 days between the date of dismissal
of suit and the date of filing of the present application. On the basis of
these averments, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed.
3. File is carefully perused. Matter pertains to the year 2013. Issues
were framed on 07.10.2015. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
On 20.10.2020, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre and it
was reported on 07.04.2021 that the matter could not be settled in the
Mediation Centre. Again matter was referred to mediation on
27.01.2022, however, settlement could not fructify. Matter was then
listed for PE on multiple dates. On 09.06.2023, one last and final
opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to lead PE on the next date, i.e.,
18.09.2023. On the said date, as plaintiff did not lead any PE and was
further seeking time for settlement, the suit was dismissed vide the
impugned order.
4. The issue to be determined is whether the plaintiff has shown
sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present application as well as
for not leading PE on the date of the impugned order. The dismissal
order was passed in the presence of the plaintiff as can be noted from
the ordersheet as the appearance of the plaintiff along with a proxy
counsel has been duly recorded. Therefore, despite being aware that the
suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution, the plaintiff/applicant has
CS No. 48/24 Renu Saxena Vs. Ashish Goyal & Ors. Page No. 2/3
-- 2 of 3 --
delayed by about 290 days in filing the present application. No
sufficient cause has been shown for this delay. Hence, application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed. Even on
merits, the order dated 18.09.2023 is backed by cogent reasons. Despite
reporting that the matter could not be settled with the Mediation
Centre, the plaintiff did not take steps to lead PE on multiple dates of
hearing. Whilst this Court is cognizant that the term “Sufficient Cause”
is to be interpreted liberally, however, the plaintiff cannot be permitted
to keep matters pending on the same stage for multiple years. This
shows a lack of intent to prudently pursue a matter and an inclination
towards ensuring endless, protracted litigation. Such an attitude does
not deserve judicial condonation. No “sufficient cause” has been made
out by the plaintiff in the present application for recalling the impugned
order. In view of the above, the applications filed under Order IX Rule
9 and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are dismissed.
5. File be consigned to Record Room.
(T. Priyadarshini)
SCJ-cum-RC
East/KKD/06.05.2025
CS No. 48/24 Renu Saxena Vs. Ashish Goyal & Ors. Page No. 3/3
-- 3 of 3 --