An illegible order-sheet date justifies restoration when it causes genuine confusion about the hearing date.

The applicants/plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit, which was pending since 2016. The matter was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 22 February 2018, and one plaintiff’s witness was examined on 16 August 2018. The next date for examination of the remaining witnesses was fixed as 5 September 2018. On that date, neither party appeared, and the Trial Court dismissed the suit for default under Order IX Rule 3 CPC.

The plaintiffs filed an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC on 11 October 2018, asserting that the Advocate’s Clerk had erroneously recorded the next date as 5 October 2018 because the date written in the order-sheet was illegible. The Trial Court rejected the restoration application by order dated 1 May 2023, leading to the present revision.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiffs’ application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 3 CPC.

Whether the plaintiffs had shown sufficient and bona fide cause for their non-appearance on 5 September 2018, particularly in light of the allegedly illegible date recorded in the order-sheet and the Advocate’s Clerk’s mistaken noting of the date.

The Court applied Order IX Rule 3 CPC, under which a suit may be dismissed when neither party appears when the suit is called for hearing, and Order IX Rule 4 CPC, which permits restoration of a suit dismissed under Rule 3 upon the plaintiff demonstrating sufficient cause for non-appearance.

The Court emphasized that procedural provisions must be applied in a justice-oriented and practical manner, and that a litigant should not ordinarily be penalised for a bona fide mistake or confusion arising from an illegible court record.

The High Court found that the month figure in the order-sheet recording the next date as “05.09.2018” was written so negligently that it could not readily be read as “9” and could reasonably cause confusion.

The Advocate’s Diary, exhibited as Exhibit P-1, recorded the date as “05.10.2018,” and the Advocate’s Clerk, Shri S.S. Yadav, testified that he had mistakenly noted and communicated that date to the party. The Court considered this explanation consistent with ordinary trial-court practice, under which litigants often leave after their matter is concluded and receive the next date from the advocate or clerk later. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ absence was treated as a bona fide mistake rather than wilful negligence. The Trial Court’s rejection of restoration was therefore held to be hyper-technical and counterproductive to justice, particularly because the confusion was substantially attributable to the improperly written order-sheet.

The suit, RCSB No. 46 of 2018, was restored to its original file for adjudication on merits under Order IX Rule 4 CPC.