SHRI GANESH ROY Vs. SUKLA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. R. Paske, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted TS No.6 of 2022 in the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner (J), Tura against the respondents herein praying for declaration of right, title and ownership and for other reliefs over the suit land. During the pendency, the TS No.6 of 2022 was dismissed for default on 12/7/2023 because of non-appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court. After the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC on 10/8/2023 praying for restoration of the title suit. The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 2023. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the said application for restoration by order dtd. 5/7/2024 as the Court was not satisfied with the reasons and explanations offered by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. S. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court committed a gross error in law by not appreciating the explanations offered by the petitioner with regard to the reasons for his previous non-appearance before the Trial Court. He submits that a perusal of the contents of the application for restoration would show that the suit was dismissed mainly on the ground of default of the lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that it is a settled position of law that a party cannot be victimized or made to suffer for the fault of his lawyer. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order may be interfered with and a direction be issued for restoration of the TS No. 6 of 2022 back to file so that the same can proceed and decided on merits in accordance with law.