The Rajasthan High Court has restored a thirty-seven-year-old suit for eviction and mesne profit which was dismissed in default after the plaintiff inadvertently noted an incorrect date of hearing. In a significant judgment emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Court allowed the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 and a unique condition requiring the appellant to plant 25 saplings for the “greater public good.”
The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, on July 30, 2019, which had rejected an application to restore the suit. The High Court accepted the plea that the non-appearance was due to a “bona fide mistake” of noting the wrong date in a diary. Acknowledging that the litigation commenced in 1989, the Court ordered the trial court to proceed expeditiously and linked the relief to environmental preservation by directing the plantation of trees.
Background of the Case
The legal controversy dates back to 1989 when the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit against the respondents-defendants. After the completion of pleadings, issues were framed on September 5, 1994, and the matter was posted for the recording of the plaintiff’s evidence.
The dispute arose regarding the proceedings scheduled for September 21, 2010. The case was deferred to October 25, 2010. However, the plaintiffs claimed that due to an “inadvertent mistake,” a wrong date—November 25, 2010—was noted in their diary. Consequently, when the matter was called on October 25, 2010, no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, leading to the dismissal of the suit in default.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the restoration of the suit, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The plaintiffs submitted that they were out of town due to urgent domestic work, which caused the delay in filing the restoration application.
The learned trial court dismissed these applications vide the impugned order dated July 30, 2019, primarily on the ground of delay, prompting the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Mohammed Anees, submitted that the non-appearance on the fateful day was unintentional and resulted from a bona fide error in recording the next date of hearing. He argued that while there was a slight delay in filing the application for restoration, it was because the plaintiffs were out of town for personal work. He contended that the trial court failed to appreciate this reason and dismissed the application on a technical count. Mr. Anees urged that given the important questions of law and fact involved, the suit should be decided on merits based on evidence rather than technical dismissal.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents, Mr. Samar Pratap Singh Naruka and Mr. Lokesh Tiwari (appearing for Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv.), opposed the appeal. They submitted that the plaintiffs failed to provide a valid justification for their non-appearance on October 25, 2010. Furthermore, they argued that the restoration application itself was filed with an unjustified delay and that the trial court had committed no error in passing the impugned order.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, observed that the error in noting the date—November 25, 2010, instead of October 25, 2010—was a specific plea raised by the plaintiffs.
Regarding the delay in filing the restoration application, the Court observed:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the delay was not such which could be held to be fatal or prolonged. There was a slight delay, which has been satisfactorily explained by the plaintiffs and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application submitted by the plaintiffs.”
The Court emphasized that the suit involves important questions of law and fact regarding eviction or non-eviction, which are liable to be decided on merits. The Court held that the impugned order was not liable to be sustained.
Direction for Environmental Preservation
In addition to imposing a monetary cost, the Court directed the plaintiffs to plant trees, observing that such an order serves the “interest of public at large.” The Court noted:
“The reasons for passing the present order directing the plaintiff to plant 25 saplings/plants is in the interest of public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will get benefit from cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated July 30, 2019. The application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed.
The restoration of the suit is subject to the following strict conditions:
- Cost: The plaintiffs must pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the defendants on or before the next date of hearing.
- Plantation: The plaintiffs are directed to plant 25 saplings/shaded trees in a public vicinity area.
- Proof of Compliance: The plaintiff must submit proof of the plantation along with photographs and an undertaking to the trial court to care for the plants until they grow up or until the final disposal of the suit.
- Consequence of Default: The Court clarified that “in case of any default committed by the plaintiffs, the same be reported to this Court by the trial Court.”
The parties have been directed to appear before the trial court on February 16, 2026.
Acknowledging that the suit was filed more than 37 years ago, the High Court directed the trial court to:
“make all possible endeavours to proceed with the proceedings of the suit expeditiously, without entertaining unnecessarily requests of adjournments of either sides.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Rashidan (Since Deceased) & Anr. v. Smt. Noorjahan (Since Deceased) & Ors.
- Case No: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4812/2019
- Court: Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur
- Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Appearance: Mr. Mohammed Anees (for Appellants); Mr. Samar Pratap Singh Naruka & Mr. Lokesh Tiwari for Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. (for Respondents)
