Courts should consider medically justified nonappearance and restore dismissed proceedings on merits, subject to costs.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging: (i) the order dated 04.05.2023 dismissing Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2021 for non-prosecution; (ii) the order dated 08.07.2024 rejecting Civil Misc. Application No. 15 of 2023 seeking restoration of CMA No. 2 of 2021; and (iii) the appellate order dated 10.06.2026 dismissing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2024.

On 04.05.2023, the petitioners’ advocate sought an adjournment on the ground that he was suffering from stone-related pain, but the trial court dismissed CMA No. 2 of 2021 for non-prosecution.

The courts below relied substantially on the petitioners’ previous conduct, including earlier non-appearance and dismissal of the underlying suit and restoration proceedings.

The petitioners contended that the matter ought to have been adjourned subject to costs and conditions, while respondent no. 1 opposed restoration but accepted that any indulgence should be accompanied by strict conditions and costs.

1. Whether the courts below erred in refusing to restore CMA No. 2 of 2021 when an adjournment had been sought on medical grounds on the date fixed for hearing.

2. Whether, in the interests of justice, CMA No. 2 of 2021 ought to be restored subject to payment of costs and conditions, notwithstanding the petitioners’ previous conduct.

3. Whether the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, should interfere with the orders dated 08.07.2024 and 10.06.2026.

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the refusal of the courts below to grant a reasonable procedural opportunity.

The governing principle applied was that, while a party’s previous negligence and repeated defaults may justify imposing costs and strict conditions, a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits where the advocate’s non-appearance on the relevant date is supported by a medical ground; the court may defer the hearing instead of dismissing the proceeding for non-prosecution.

Restoration is therefore a discretionary relief to be balanced against the opposing party’s prejudice through costs, conditions, and directions for expeditious conduct.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment beyond Article 227.

The High Court accepted that the petitioners had displayed previous negligence and that the courts below were entitled to take such conduct into account.

However, the decisive circumstance was that, on 04.05.2023, the petitioners’ advocate had filed an adjournment application citing stone-related pain, a fact not disputed by respondent no. 1.

The trial court focused on earlier defaults instead of considering the immediate medical explanation and could have imposed costs or other conditions while granting a short adjournment.

The subsequent restoration and appellate courts repeated the same error by treating the prior conduct as determinative.

To balance the petitioners’ right to an adjudication on merits with the prejudice caused to respondent no. 1, the Court ordered restoration subject to monetary costs, deposit with the District Legal Services Authority, and a direction against unnecessary adjournments.

CMA No. 15 of 2023 was allowed, subject to the petitioners paying Rs.10,000 to respondent no. 1 and depositing Rs.10,000 with DLSA, Bhavnagar, by 18.09.2026.

The trial court was directed to hear and decide CMA No. 2 of 2021 on merits, while leaving all parties’ rights and the issue of maintainability open.

The petitioners were directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to seriously pursue the restoration application; the parties were directed to cooperate for its early disposal.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with direct service permitted.