Restoration is justified where the plaintiff satisfactorily establishes sufficient cause for absence from proceedings.

The respondent-plaintiff had executed a sale deed concerning Survey No. 439/2 in favour of respondent No. 2, who subsequently sold the property to the petitioner-Society by registered sale deed dated 10 January 2008.

The plaintiff instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction in 2014.

The suit was listed for recording the plaintiff’s evidence on 24 April 2019, but neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared, and the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The plaintiff applied for restoration under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that he was prevented from appearing due to a family marriage and illness.

He examined himself and his brother-in-law and produced marriage invitations as Exhibits P/2 and P/3.

After recording evidence and considering the petitioner’s objections regarding the genuineness of the marriage cards, the trial Court restored the suit by order dated 22 August 2026, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff had shown “sufficient cause” for his and his counsel’s absence on 24 April 2019 so as to justify restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC.

Whether the trial Court’s order restoring the suit suffered from such jurisdictional or material error as warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.

The Court applied Order IX Rule 9 CPC, which permits restoration of a suit dismissed for default where the plaintiff demonstrates sufficient cause for non-appearance, read with Section 151 CPC.

The scope of interference under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors or material irregularity and does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible.

Relying on Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545, and the principles drawn from Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, and other authorities, the Court held that “sufficient cause” means an adequate explanation showing that the party was not negligent, mala fide, inactive, or lacking diligence; the expression must be applied to advance substantial justice while exercising judicial discretion.

The trial Court had assessed the plaintiff’s explanation through oral and documentary evidence.

Exhibit P/2 showed that the marriage was scheduled for 25 April 2019, while Exhibit P/3 indicated that the marriage functions commenced on 20 April 2019 and identified the plaintiff as the bride’s uncle.

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that Exhibit P/3 was fabricated, observing that Exhibit P/2 had been issued from the bridegroom’s side and therefore need not mention the plaintiff, whereas Exhibit P/3 had been produced by the witness whose daughter was the bride and came from proper custody.

The brother-in-law’s testimony supported the plaintiff’s explanation, and the petitioner’s cross-examination did not elicit any material contradiction.

Since the trial Court had considered the evidence and reasonably found the cause of absence to be sufficient, no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was established to justify revisional interference.

Finding no error warranting interference under Section 115 CPC, the Court declined admission of the revision and dismissed Civil Revision No. 1048 of 2026.