Procedural Lapses During COVID-19 Pandemic Cannot Non-Suit Litigants Without Adjudication on Merits

The petitioner filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC seeking to recall the High Court's order dated 16.03.2023, which had dismissed Arbitration Revision No. 04 of 2023.

The original revision was filed against a Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal order dated 06.09.2021 that dismissed the petitioner’s reference case for want of prosecution due to repeated absences on specific dates between 2020 and 2021.

The petitioner contended that these absences occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, a factor not adequately considered in the dismissal of the revision.

There was also a 176-day delay in filing this review petition.

1. Whether the delay of 176 days in filing the review petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Whether the failure to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the petitioner’s non-appearance constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the power of review, noting it is limited and not an appellate jurisdiction but applicable when material facts are overlooked.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which directed the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes due to the pandemic.

Procedural laws are intended to advance justice, and a "hyper-technical approach" should be avoided in extraordinary situations.

The Court first condoned the 176-day delay, finding that the petitioner made out "sufficient cause" prevented by circumstances.

The Bench observed that the dates of absence (14.08.2020 to 06.09.2021) fell squarely within the period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court reasoned that the previous order dated 16.03.2023 failed to adequately advert to the judicial recognition of the pandemic's disruptive impact on institutional functioning and mobility.

It held that while review power is narrow, the omission of such a material fact—coupled with the significant financial stakes (encashment of Rs. 42 crores in bank guarantees)—resulted in a manifest injustice and a failure of justice.

The court determined that the petitioner’s absence was not "willful or contumacious" but occasioned by external circumstances.

Arbitration Revision No. 04 of 2023 was restored to its original number, and the Registry was directed to list it for adjudication on the merits; I.A. No. 7826 of 2025 for condonation of delay was also disposed of in favor of the petitioner.