An order rejecting restoration of a dismissed suit is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(c), not as a decree.

The respondent’s ejectment suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20 May 2022.

He applied for restoration seven days later, stating that age-related joint problems had prevented his appearance. The trial court dismissed the restoration application for want of sufficient cause, noting the respondent’s repeated absences. On appeal, the appellate court allowed restoration.

Whether an order rejecting an application to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution is appealable under Order XLIII CPC, rather than by a regular first appeal.

Whether the respondent showed sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date the suit was dismissed, warranting restoration.

Section 2(2) CPC defines a decree as the formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the parties’ rights concerning matters in controversy; dismissal for non-prosecution does not meet that definition because it does not adjudicate the merits.

Under Order IX Rules 3 and 8 CPC, a suit may be dismissed for non-appearance in the circumstances specified there; restoration may be sought under Rules 4 or 9 upon showing sufficient cause, subject to the prescribed limitation period. An order rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 9 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC.

The Court also referred to Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, SLP (C) Nos. 935–936 of 2021, decided 21 November 2024, on a litigant’s duty to remain vigilant and the insufficiency of counsel’s negligence alone to excuse inordinate delay.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s maintainability argument because refusal to restore a suit is an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(c), not a decree requiring a regular first appeal.

It distinguished Rajneesh Kumar: unlike the inordinate delay considered there, the respondent applied for restoration within seven days of dismissal. The relevant question was whether sufficient cause explained his absence on the dismissal date. The respondent’s age and severe joint problems provided that cause, and the Court agreed that restoration was justified.

It directed that the suit be restored to its original position and that the trial court proceed in accordance with law; the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 14 October 2026.