Courts must adopt a liberal approach in restoring suits to ensure substantive adjudication on merits.

The appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding an Agreement to Sell (dated 18.11.2019) for a restaurant named “BSJ”.

The appellant alleged that despite paying a partial sale consideration of ₹15.00 lacs, the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, leading to a criminal FIR against the respondent.

While an application for the appointment of a receiver under Order XL of the CPC was pending for orders, the Trial Court dismissed the main suit in default on 30.11.2023.

The appellant filed a restoration application (No. 12/2024), explaining that his counsel was misinformed of the hearing date by the court clerk and that the appellant was out of station in Rajasthan.

The learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, dismissed the restoration application on 21.02.2026, ruling that "sufficient cause" was not shown.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the restoration application despite a minimal delay of 10 days and the explanation provided for non-appearance.

2. Whether the interest of justice required a liberal approach to restore the suit for adjudication on merits given the payment of part consideration and the pending criminal proceedings.

The court applied the principle of "sufficient cause" typically governed by Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for restoration of suits dismissed in default and Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

The court relied on the judicial doctrine that a liberal approach should be adopted in restoration matters to ensure disputes are adjudicated on substantive merits rather than being terminated on technicalities.

It further considered the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the enforcement of contracts.

The High Court observed that there was a delay of only 10 days in filing the restoration application, which the Trial Court failed to view through a liberal lens.

The Court found the appellant’s explanation—miscommunication of the hearing date by the court clerk and his residence in Rajasthan—to be plausible and constituting "sufficient cause".

The Court noted the gravity of the matter, including the fact that the respondent is facing a criminal trial for cheating the appellant in the same transaction.

During the proceedings, the appellant demonstrated bona fides by undertaking to pay the balance sale consideration of ₹1.15 Crore within one month.

The Court reasoned that since part consideration (₹15.00 lacs) had already been paid, dismissing the suit on technical grounds would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court determined that the matter must be remitted for fresh adjudication to resolve the dispute in a fair and thorough manner.

The suit was restored to its original number.

The Court directed the Trial Court to record the appellant's undertaking to pay the balance consideration in a formal agreement deed and proceed to decide the matter afresh on its merits.

The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.04.2026.