Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 17
MISC DJ 1675-25
MS SHUGO TELECOM LTD Vs. INDER SINGH
23.03.2026
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/plaintiff through VC.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for non-applicant/
defendant
This is an application U/o 9 Rule 9 CPC moved by
plaintiff seeking restoration of the suit.
Before I note down grounds taken in the application
for restoring the suit, I deem it appropriate to precisely
mentioning the reasons leading to filing of the present
application.
It appears from the perusal of the record that on
15.02.2025, issues were framed and matter was fixed for PE on
12.08.2024. However, on 12.08.2024, on account of non-
appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed in
default and for non-prosecution. There upon, an application U/o
9 Rule 4 CPC seeking restoration of the suit was filed on behalf
of the plaintiff and the suit was allowed to be restored to its
original number and stage vide order dated 09.05.2025, subject to
deposit of cost of Rs.5000/- which was to be deposited by the
plaintiff before the next date of hearing and the matter was listed
for PE for 23.07.2025, however, the cost so ordered was not
deposited. On 23.07.2025, Ld. Counsel for defendant appeared,
however none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff consequently,
the suit of the plaintiff was again dismissed in default as well as
for want of prosecution. It is in this background, the present
application has been moved on behalf of plaintiff/ applicant.
-- 1 of 4 --
Now coming to the grounds taken in the present
application U/o 9 Rule 9 CPC. It is stated in the application that
on 12.08.2024, on account of non-prosecution, the suit was
dismissed which was subsequently restored vide order dated
09.05.2025 on application U/o 9 Rule 4 CPC and the matter was
listed for evidence of the plaintiff. However, counsel for plaintiff
could hear and noted the date as 22.09.2025 in his diary. It is
stated that believing the next date to be 22.09.2025, neither the
AR nor counsel appeared on 23.07.2025 when the matter was
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. It is further stated
that during the second week of August 2025, when the Court was
lying vacant, counsel and AR of the plaintiff appeared on
22.09.2025 when it was revealed that the suit was already
dismissed on 23.07.2025 for non-prosecution. Hence, the present
application.
Ld. Counsel for defendant/non- applicant opposed
the application submitting that the application is liable to be
dismissed outrightly as there is apparent alteration in the diary of
the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Moreover, the application has been
moved belatedly. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff stated that non-
appearance on 23.07.2025 is only a bonafide mistake and not
intentional as wrong date of hearing was noted by him and
therefore, he could not appear on 23.07.2025.
I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsels for
the parties and have gone through the record.
It is to be noted that while settling the law in this
regard, it is clearly laid down that there should be liberal
approach in restoration of the suit dismissed either U/o 9 Rule 4
CPC or U/o 9 Rule 8 CPC, if plaintiff shows genuine and
-- 2 of 4 --
bonafide reasons for non-appearance. In the present case, as
noted above, suit was dismissed U/o 9 Rule 4 CPC and the same
was ordered to be restored when the order was passed on
09.05.2025 in the presence of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay/deposit cost of
Rs.5000/-. The cost amount was not deposited with the DLSA
for no explanation at all as to why the order was not complied
with. Now, even if it is taken on the face of it, the application is
silent as to why no step was taken from 22.09.2025 to
30.10.2025. The present application has been filed only on
01.11.2025 whereas the plaintiff came to know about dismissal of
the suit for non- prosecution on 22.09.2025.
Although, an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act
has been moved. Even this application does not mention as to
why application in hand has not been moved immediately after
22.09.2025 even if as per plaintiff, the Court was lying vacant
and the plaintiff came to know about dismissal of the present suit,
application could have been moved.
Having considered the submissions as noted above
and having perused the record, I am of the view that matters
should be decided on merits rather on technicalities.
Accordingly, considering the grounds taken in the application, the
same is allowed and the suit is ordered to be restored subject to cost
of Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the defendant, besides the cost of
Rs.5000/- already order to be deposited with the DLSA, North
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Subject to payment of cost of Rs.30,000/- to the
defendant and deposit of cost Rs.5000/- with the DLSA, North
-- 3 of 4 --
District, Rohini, put up this matter on 22.05.2026 for recording of
PE.
Copy of this order be placed in misc. File and Misc. File be
consigned to the Record Room.
(Shailender Malik )
District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/23.03.2026
-- 4 of 4 --