Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010011732019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.468 OF 2019
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2867 OF 2018
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.772 OF 1984
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.273 OF 1984
(Disposed of)
IN
SUIT NO.3304 OF 1962
(Disposed of)
The Sonawala Industries Pvt. Ltd. … Plaintiffs
Versus
Baban Mishra … Defendants
And
Pankaj Hardware and 26 others ... Obstructionists/
Third Parties
APPEARANCES :
Mr. A. R. Khanna, Advocate for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Gole, Advocate for Obstructionist No.2
CORAM : AMIT ANANT LAULKAR,
JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.02
DATED : 09th DECEMBER, 2025
-- 1 of 5 --
(2)
ORDER
1. Being disgruntled with dismissal of Notice of motion, the
applicant/plaintiffs herein moved instant motion for restoration of
original notice of motion No.2867 of 2018, vide order IX rule 4 read
with section 141 and 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908.
2.
Per plaintiffs, they had filed Execution Application bearing
No.273 of 1984, wherein chamber summons No.772 of 1984, was
placed for hearing and owing to absence of plaintiffs and their
advocate, the Court dismissed said chamber summons in default.
Eventually, the plaintiffs preferred Notice of Motion No.2867 of 2018,
for recalling above order and restoration of said chamber summons.
Amid pendency, due to absence of plaintiffs and their advocate, said
notice of motion was dismissed in default by this Court vide its order
dated 01.11.2018. As per plaintiffs, due to unavoidable reasons they
could not attend the Court for taking positive steps. In fact, they
reached the Court within time, but meanwhile dismissal order was
already passed. As per applicant/plaintiffs, now, they are ready to
proceed with said notice of motion. There were sufficient reasons for
not attending the Court on the date of hearing. On all above counts the
plaintiffs implored for restoring the impugned notice of motion and
oblige.
3. Refuting above stance, obstructionist No.2 raised potent
objections for restoration of the notice of motion. According to him,
present motion is false and misconceived, lacking sufficient reasons and
therefore, it be dismissed at the threshold. Rest of the obstructionists
did not opt to file any reply.
-- 2 of 5 --
Order (3) Notice of Motion No.468/2019
4. Heard. I have pore over entire record, minutely.
5. A restoration application under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 is a legal remedy to reinstate a dismissed case, or
application, typically due to parties’ absence or procedural
noncompliance. The primary provision is contemplated under order IX
Rule 4 of the CPC which allow restoration if the applicant/plaintiff
reveals sufficient cause for their absence. Section 151 of CPC grants the
Court inherent powers for the ends of justice. The legal mandate for
restoration of cause compels the applicant to adduce evidence for their
absence and thereafter the Court shall consider the matter based on the
merits, ensuring substantial justice is done. Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC
allows restoration of a case dismissed for default if the plaintiff
applicant demonstrates sufficient cause for their absence. The key
provision is, the applicant must prove before the Court that there were
sufficient reasons for not attending the Court entailing for reliefs of
condonation of delay followed by restoration of main suit.
6. Applying preceding legal mandate to instant set of facts, it
is crystalline that vide its order dated 01.11.2018, Notice of Motion
No.2867 of 2018, was dismissed in default. The plaintiff has put forth
suitable reasons explaining their absence before the Court. The reasons
assigned are just and reasonable. Record reveals that the matter is very
old and prolonging unnecessarily. If the impugned notice of motion is
not restored then it will pave way for multiplicity of litigation. To avoid
escalation of fraction within the parties and to put an end to the
controversy, I perceive, opportunity needs to be given to the plaintiffs.
Therefore, by taking utmost liberal view, purely in the interest of justice,
present notice of motion deserves approval.
-- 3 of 5 --
(4)
7.
Ergo the order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.468 of 2019 is allowed.
2. Original Notice of Motion No.2867 of 2018, in Chamber
Summons No.772 of 1984, is hereby restored on the file of this Court at
the same stage when it was dismissed in default.
3. Post restoration, due notices be issued to the concerned parties
and other stakeholders. Plaintiff to comply the same.
4. Notice of motion is disposed of accordingly.
(Amit Anant Laulkar)
Judge,
Date : 09.12.2025 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 5 --
Order (5) Notice of Motion No.468/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
11.12.2025 11.30 a.m. Shilpa P. Pawar
Stenographer - Grade IUPLOAD DATE TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H. H. Judge Shri. Amit A. Laulkar
Court Room No.2.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 09.12.2025
ORDER signed by P. O. on 10.12.2025
ORDER uploaded on 11.12.2025
-- 5 of 5 --