LAXMAN Vs. BHIKHARILAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 15.5.2012, passed in Case No. 32/2011 by Third Additional District Judge, Bhind. The said Court rejected the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 3.11.2007. By order dated 3.11.2007, the trial court rejected the application of petitioner preferred under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 111/99. The trial court listed the matter on 12.9.2003. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared on the said date. The trial court rejected the civil suit. The petitioner preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the matter. The evidence was also led before the trial court. The trial court after hearing the parties on restoration application passed a detailed order dated 3.11.2007 and opined that the petitioner has failed to show the sufficient reason for his absence and, therefore, suit cannot be restored mechanically. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order in Civil Appeal No. 32/2011. The appellate court opined that the petitioner has failed to show any perversity in the order of the trial court. The trial court's order is in accordance with law.

(3.) Shri Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that courts below have erred in rejecting the application for restoration. It is submitted that the petitioner has assigned justifiable reasons for his absence, which should have been accepted by the court below.