A litigant should not suffer dismissal for counsel’s nonappearance; restoration may be ordered on costs.

The appellant’s suit for declaration of title, injunction, partition and possession was dismissed for default on 20 April 2018 after neither she nor her counsel appeared.

She applied for restoration under Order IX Rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC, stating that she had been given the wrong next hearing date.

The trial court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient cause.

On appeal, the High Court noted that the trial-court record showed the appellant’s counsel had attended on 12 April 2018, when the actual date of 20 April was fixed; it also found that the appellant’s explanation was unsupported by affidavits and appeared incorrect.

Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application to restore the suit for failure to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Whether the suit should nevertheless be restored where the appellant’s counsel’s failure to appear resulted in dismissal without a decision on the merits.

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, challenging dismissal of an application under Order IX Rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC.

The Court applied the principle that a litigant should not ordinarily suffer for a lapse by counsel and that, when considering sufficient cause, courts should favour substantial justice over technicalities.

It also relied on Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi, (2003) 6 SCC 573, for the rule that statements in a court record about what occurred in court are conclusive unless the party promptly seeks correction from that court.

The Court referred to its decision in Yogendra Kumar Chadda through POA Kuldeep Sahgal v. Aayukt and Others, M.A. No. 8014 of 2024, order dated 18 September 2026, for the principle that counsel’s mistake may constitute sufficient cause.

The Court rejected the appellant’s account that her counsel was absent on 12 April and that she was misinformed about the next date: the order sheet recorded counsel’s presence, and the appellant had not produced affidavits from herself, her nephew, or either lawyer, or the relevant diary entry.

It therefore agreed that the stated explanation was unproved and appeared concocted.

Nevertheless, it found that counsel had attended on 12 April but failed to appear on 20 April, leading to dismissal of the suit without adjudication on the merits.

Given the appellant’s dependence on counsel and the prejudice that would result if the suit remained dismissed, the Court considered that the litigant should not suffer for counsel’s lapse and that restoration, subject to compensatory costs, would serve substantial justice.

It restored Civil Suit No. 13A/2011 to its original number for further proceedings from the stage at which it had been dismissed, subject to the appellant paying Rs. 50,000 in costs to respondents 1 and 2 within one month.