MAHILA JAGANNATHI WD/O SITARAM Vs. NAGA DHUDILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. The brief facts which have led to the filing of this petition are as under : A civil suit was filed by the present petitioner. This was dismissed on 19-9-1996. This was done because, evidence on the part of the plaintiff was not present. An application was filed, seeking restoration. This application was filed taking into consideration Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. This application was dismissed on the ground that as provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 are attracted, there is no justification to restore the suit.

(2.) I am of the opinion, that the trial Court was not right in the reasoning adopted by it. When a suit is dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, two remedies are available. These remedies are to seek restoration or to file a review. See: Tirukappa v. Kamalamma, AIR 1966 Mysore and Bhajan Singh v. Bant Singh, AIR 1980 Pandh 149. The Judicial opinion is that since consequences of the order of dismissal in default are very serious and as the plaintiff may be barred from filing of the suit, the suit should be restored. Negligence of the counsel should not come in the way of such restoration.

(3.) IN view of the above, the order passed by the trial Court refusing to restore the suit is set aside. The suit shall stand restored to its original number. This is however, subject to the payment of costs. Costs are Rs. 500/ -. Disposed of accordingly.