Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayanrao vs Raghunathrao Maratha(Dead) on 7 September, 2015
1 Civil Revision No.65/2009
(Narayanrao vs. Raghunathrao (dead) through LRs. and another)
07/09/2015
Shri Akhilesh Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D.D. Bansal, Advocate for respondents.
This civil revision under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 23/10/2008 rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC filed by the plaintiff/applicant.
There is no dispute between the parties that on account of single default of non-appearance on 21/2/2006 the suit has been dismissed for non- appearance. The trial court though dealt with the evidence brought on record as regards non-appearance on 21/2/2006 and has entered into evaluation of the evidence very minutely and concluded that as the plaintiff did not state details of survey numbers of agricultural land situated in Maharashtra in connection whereof he had gone there, besides he has also not produced the railway ticket of travelling to Maharashtra, therefore, the reason shown for non-appearance on 21/2/2006 to the effect that he had gone to his native village in Maharashtra was found to be not sufficiently explained and established and accordingly, the trial court dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC.
Having perused the order impugned, in the opinion 2 Civil Revision No.65/2009 (Narayanrao vs. Raghunathrao (dead) through LRs. and another) of this Court, the order passed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC is based upon appreciation of evidence on record and, therefore, no illegality is found to have been committed warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction, however, keeping in mind the fact that only single default of non-appearance has led to dismissal of the suit, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice shall be subserved if plaintiff is given an opportunity to contest the suit, as he himself submits that he is prepared to abide by the terms and conditions which this Court deems fit and proper. Accordingly, keeping in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience the plaintiff is permitted to participate in the suit, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) payable to defendants. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit and decide it expeditiously preferably within one year, as the suit is pending since the year 1999.
With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Arun*