Courts should condone restoration delays where litigants bona fide rely on counsel and act promptly.

The appellant had instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in 2014, later renumbered as CS SCJ No. 35831/2016.

The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19 August 2023.

The appellant stated that he learned of the dismissal after receiving a legal notice in July 2024 and thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, dated 26 July 2024, which he said was filed on 31 July 2024.

The Trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of the 318-day delay and consequently dismissed the restoration application as time-barred.

The appellant challenged that order in this appeal.

Whether the appellant’s explanation for the delay in applying to restore the suit constituted “sufficient cause” for condonation.

Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to condone the delay should be set aside and the suit restored.

Order XLIII Rule 1(d) read with Section 104 CPC provided the basis for the appeal; Order IX Rule 9 CPC governed the application to restore the suit dismissed for non-prosecution; and Section 5 of the Limitation Act governed condonation of delay.

The Court applied the principle that “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal, justice-oriented construction where the explanation is bona fide and does not show deliberate inaction or lack of good faith.

It relied on *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji*, (1987) 2 SCC 107, on the liberal approach to condonation, and *Rafiq v. Munshilal*, (1981) 2 SCC 788, on protecting a bona fide litigant, in appropriate circumstances, from the consequences of counsel’s lapse.

The Court accepted the appellant’s explanation that he had relied on his previous counsel for information about the proceedings and was not told that counsel had stopped appearing.

It also noted that, after learning of the dismissal in July 2024, the appellant acted to seek restoration and could not be regarded as inactive.

Applying the liberal approach to “sufficient cause,” the Court concluded that the dispute should be determined on its merits rather than terminated solely because of the delay.

It directed that the Order IX Rule 9 CPC application stand allowed and the suit be restored to its original position.

The matter was listed before the Trial Court for 12 October 2026; the Court expressed no view on the merits of the suit.