Chattisgarh High Court
Dharmraj Singh vs Principal on 6 January, 2025
1
AJAY
KUMAR
DWIVEDI
2025:CGHC:576
Date:
2025.01.07
11:28:10
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 174 of 2024
Dharmraj Singh S/o Shri Bhairav Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Govindpur,
Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Govindpur, Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt.-
Surajpur (C.G.) (Defandants No.1)
2 - District Education Officer Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)(Defandants No.2)
3 - Ramraj Singh S/o Shri Bhairav Singh Aged About 47 Years (Name Wrongly Mentioned
As Shramraj) R/o Village- Govindpur, Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)(Plaintiff No.
2)
4 - Krishndev S/o Shri Kalika Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Govindpur, Tahsil-
Pratappur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)(Plaintiff No. 3)
5 - Indradev Singh S/o Shri Chandrika Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Govindpur,
Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)(Plaintiff No. 4)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA.
SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.
Order On Board
06.01.2025
1. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.09.2024
passed by the learned District Judge, Pratappur, Surguja in Misc. Appeal
No.01-A/2023 arising out of order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Civil
Judge Class-1, Pratappur in connection with Civil Suit No.35-A/2012,
whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants No.1 and 2
the appellate Court has allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and set-aside the order dated
27.03.2023. Consequently, the appellate Court has quashed ex-parte
judgment and decree dated 28.04.2017 passed in main Civil Suit
No.35-A/2012 and directed the trial Court to decide the lis after hearing
both the parties on merits.
2. Necessary facts of the case are that the present applicant along with three
others have filed a Civil Suit No.35-A/2012 for declaration of title, recovery
of possession and permanent injunction as also for removal of encroachment
in respect of land bearing Khasra No.405, Area 3.98 Hectare situated at
Govindpur alleging that land in question is their ancestral land, however, the
State Authorities have made a proposal for constructing the school building
and playground over the said land in the year 2010 and thereafter the same
has been constructed. The suit was filed on 21.09.2012. The defendants
No.1 to 4 have filed their written statement denying the averments made in
the plaint. However, after filing the written statement, no one has made
appearance on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2, therefore, an ex-parte
proceeding was drawn and judgment and decree was passed on 28.04.2017
in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 of the
Limitation Act on ground that In-charge Principal, namely, Shri J.N. Prasad
was suffering from some mental illness so he could not appear during the
court proceedings. However, the trial Court has not accepted the said reason
as sufficient cause and dismissed the application. Against the said order, the
defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.01A/2023. The
appellate Court has allowed the said appeal as also the application under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and remitted the matter back to the trial Court to
decide the main civil suit on merits. Against the said order, the plaintiff has
preferred this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned appellate
Court has committed an error of law in reversing the well reasoned finding
of the trial Court as defendants No.1 and 2 have not shown the sufficient
cause for their absence. He further submits that the appeal was allowed on
the ground that the party is the State Authority though law is applicable to
private person as well as the State. Therefore, impugned order is not
sustainable and same deserves to be aside.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed
with the petition.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner along with three others have filed the suit for
declaration that subject land is private land though school building has
already been constructed. Further, the judgment and decree dated
28.04.2017 was passed ex-parte because the In-charge of the
defendant/Govt. School could not participate in proceedings in diligent
manner. When the State Authority has examined the case, it was revealed
that the said officer was suffering from certain medical issues relating to
mental health and certain documents were also filed along with application
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, however, the trial Court has adopted hyper-technical
approach and dismissed the application.
6. The first appellate Court while passing the order impugned placed reliance
on the judgment of Sheo Raj Singh Vs. Union of India [(2023) 10 SCC
531] wherein principles and summary of guidelines with regard to
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
responsibility of Officers of State while representing the case have been
enunciated.
7. In catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held that the
words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be
liberally construed to enable the court to do complete justice between the
parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to erring
party. The courts have a wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause
keeping in view the peculiar facts and to the date on which the absence was
made a ground for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to reply
upon other circumstances anterior in time. Where substantial justice and a
technical approach were pitted against each other, a pragmatic approach
should be adapted with the former being preferred and substantive rights of
private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to
technical consideration of delay. It is also well settled that it would be
improper to put the State on the same footing as an individual since it was
an impersonal machinery operating through its officers.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the
appellate Court has not committed any error while allowing the appeal of
the defendants and has rightly remitted back the matter to decide the lis after
hearing both the parties on merits.
9. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay
