Suits may be restored under Order IX Rule 9 where counsel negligence and circumstances justify overlooking deficient pleadings.

The appellant, a registered contractor of the Military Engineering Services, was awarded Contract No. GE/TEZ/55 of 1982–83. Disputes arose regarding execution of the contract and were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator’s award dated 10 June 1994 left certain terms of reference undecided. On the appellant’s application under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award was remitted for reconsideration; however, the arbitrator returned it without reconsideration, and the award was declared void on 1 June 1998.

The appellant thereafter instituted Title Suit No. (Arb.) 3/1999 under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking appointment of a new arbitrator. During the proceedings, relevant records from Money Suit (Arb.) No. 13/1994 could not be traced. The suit was dismissed for default on 25 March 2004.

The appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Both applications were dismissed on 18 August 2007. In FAO No. 28/2010, the High Court set aside that order on 27 July 2017, holding that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay, including the non-traceability of necessary records and his absence from Assam due to the illness and death of his parents.

Upon remand, the Civil Judge dismissed the restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC on 19 March 2018, finding that the appellant had not specifically explained his non-appearance on the date when the suit was dismissed. The appellant challenged that order in the present appeal.

Whether the restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was rightly dismissed for failure to specifically plead sufficient cause for the appellant’s non-appearance on 25 March 2004?

Whether, having regard to the appellant’s absence due to the illness and death of his parents, the non-traceability of relevant records, and the alleged negligence of counsel, the suit ought to be restored in the interests of substantial justice?

Order IX Rule 9 CPC empowers the court to restore a suit dismissed for default where the plaintiff satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing.

The court relied on the principle that “sufficient cause” must be construed broadly and may include circumstances where no deliberate negligence or want of bona fides can be inferred, as recognised in Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545, and applied in Tarun Gogoi v. Himanta Biswa Sarma, (2017) 4 GLT 1.

It further applied the established principle that substantial justice should ordinarily prevail over technical considerations, relying upon Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, and the decisions cited by the appellant.

The Court also recognised that a litigant should not ordinarily suffer for the negligence or wrong advice of counsel.

The High Court accepted that the pleadings in the restoration application did not expressly state that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on 25 March 2004 and that they attributed the dismissal primarily to the court’s mistake.

Nevertheless, the Court considered the entire factual background, including its earlier finding in FAO No. 28/2010 that the relevant records had remained untraceable and that the appellant had been away in Chandigarh because of the illness and death of his parents.

The Court also took into account the appellant’s submission that his counsel had failed to inform him about the listing and dismissal of the matter. Applying the liberal approach to “sufficient cause,” the preference for substantial justice over procedural technicalities, and the principle that a party should not suffer for counsel’s negligence, the Court held that restoration was justified despite the deficient drafting of the application.

The order dated 19 March 2018 in Misc. (J) Case No. 12/2006 was quashed and set aside. Title Suit (Arbitration) No. 3/1999 was restored to file. The parties were directed to appear before the Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, on 3 November 2026, after which the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter on merits. The Registry was directed to return the trial court records.