A suit dismissed for default should be restored when a single explained absence is promptly addressed.

The petitioners were plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

On 27 April 2019, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution when the plaintiffs did not appear for the scheduled recording of evidence.

They said their counsel was away in Delhi and they had remained outside the courtroom relying on the junior counsel to represent them.

They applied under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration on 14 May 2019; the trial court rejected the application on 4 April 2022, and the appellate court dismissed their appeal on 9 April 2024.

The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioners showed sufficient cause for their non-appearance to warrant setting aside the dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 CPC

Whether the courts below committed an error warranting interference under Article 227 by refusing to restore the suit

Order IX Rule 9 CPC permits the court to set aside dismissal of a suit for default where the plaintiff satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing; the court may impose appropriate terms and costs.

The High Court considered the orders below for perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

The plaintiffs’ explanation was that they relied on their junior counsel while their principal counsel was away, and they remained outside the courtroom.

The High Court considered that explanation alongside the absence of any finding of earlier or recurring negligence and the filing of the restoration application within a short time after dismissal.

It concluded that the circumstances did not establish negligence sufficient to deny restoration and that the courts below should have allowed the application; it also observed that the trial court could have adjourned the matter rather than dismissing the suit.

It set aside the appellate and trial court orders, allowed the Order IX Rule 9 application, and restored Civil Suit No. 162-A/2013 to its original number.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 15 October 2026, cooperate in expeditious disposal, and avoid unnecessary adjournments.