The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently held that a trial court cannot reject applications merely because the case file is disorganized or a party is absent. In a significant order, the court described such a dismissal as a “classic instance of abdication of judicial duty” and emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer and their staff to maintain court records properly.
The Indore bench, presided over by Justice Alok Awasthi, quashed a trial court’s order that had dismissed several applications without a hearing on the merits.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court through a miscellaneous petition filed by Parameshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Advocate Shri Utkarsh Joshi appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Ms. Mradula Sen appeared for the respondent State.
The petitioner challenged an order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the 30th District Judge, Indore, in case number RCSA No.715/2022. The trial court had rejected applications filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, including an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The rejection was based on the absence of the plaintiff’s counsel and the disorganized state of the court’s file.
Trial Court’s Order and Reasoning
The trial court, in its order of 21.04.2025, noted the absence of the plaintiff and their advocate at 1:55 PM, despite the matter being scheduled for 12:00 PM for hearing on pending applications. The judge, Kumar Umesh Kumar Patel, recorded that “the file is completely disorganized” (फाईल पूर्णतः अव्यवस्थित है) and that the plaintiff had failed to take steps for the service of respondent No. 7.
Citing the plaintiff’s absence, the trial court passed the following order: “Since the plaintiff is not present and it is 1:55 PM, in such a situation, all the applications submitted on behalf of the plaintiff are rejected without being heard on merits.” (चूंकि वादी उपस्थित नहीं है और इस समय 1:55 बज चुके हैं, ऐसी दशा में वादी की ओर से प्रस्तुत सभी आवेदन पत्रों को गुण-दोष पर सुने बिना निरस्त किया गया।)
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Alok Awasthi, upon reviewing the trial court’s order, found that a clear illegality had been committed. The High Court stated that the lower court had passed a “non-speaking order, which demonstrates a classic instance of abdication of judicial duty.”
The Court made a crucial observation regarding the responsibility for maintaining court records, stating: “It is the duty of the Court staff to properly arrange the file and the Presiding Officer ought to have control over the Court staff. It cannot be a reason for rejecting the applications of any party. It is not the fault of the party that Court’s file is not arranged properly.”
The High Court unequivocally held that the reasons provided by the trial court were unjustifiable grounds for dismissing the petitioner’s applications without considering their merits.
Final Decision
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 21.04.2025. The petition was disposed of with a clear direction to the trial court to decide all pending applications on their own merits.
The High Court mandated that the trial court must peruse the record and provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A strict timeline was also set, directing the trial court to complete this process within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the High Court’s order.
A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the concerned Principal District Judge for information and to the trial court for necessary compliance.
