Courts must adopt a liberal approach when restoring suits dismissed for want of prosecution.

The plaintiff instituted a suit on 15 October 2018 for recovery of more than ₹30 lakhs.

On 16 October 2024, neither the plaintiff nor anyone on his behalf appeared when the suit was called, and the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The plaintiff filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on 4 November 2024, within the prescribed limitation period, seeking restoration of the suit.

The Trial Court rejected the application, principally relying on the delay in adducing evidence, the availability of other counsel, and the non-examination of the doctor who issued the medical certificate.

The Principal District Judge, Khandwa, in appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s order and restored the suit by order dated 2 July 2026.

The defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 16 October 2024 so as to warrant restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC?

Whether the Appellate Court committed illegality or material irregularity in allowing the plaintiff’s restoration application and restoring the suit?

Whether the plaintiff’s previous conduct in taking time to adduce evidence justified rejection of the restoration application despite its being filed within limitation?

The Court applied Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, under which a suit dismissed for the plaintiff’s default or non-appearance may be restored upon the plaintiff showing sufficient cause for the absence.

The Court reiterated the principle that restoration applications should ordinarily be considered liberally to advance substantial justice, particularly where the application is filed within limitation.

The Court also applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which interference is warranted where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction or with illegality or material irregularity, but not merely because another view is possible.

The High Court held that the plaintiff had regularly appeared in the proceedings and that his counsel had also generally been participating in the matter.

The plaintiff’s explanation for his absence on the specific date was supported by a medical prescription, which had not been effectively rebutted by the defendant.

The Court held that the relevant inquiry under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was the reason for non-appearance on the date of dismissal; the plaintiff’s earlier conduct in seeking time for evidence could not, by itself, determine the restoration application.

Since the application was filed within limitation and the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause, the Appellate Court acted within its jurisdiction in restoring the suit.

The defendant would suffer no prejudice because he retained a full opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

It held that sufficient cause had been shown for the plaintiff’s non-appearance and that the Appellate Court had committed no illegality or material irregularity in allowing restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

The order dated 2 July 2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Khandwa, restoring the suit was affirmed, and the defendant’s petition under Article 227 was dismissed.