[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Haresh Ramchandra Balwani vs Dineshbhai Madubhai Mali on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/566/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 566 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HARESH RAMCHANDRA BALWANI & ANR.
Versus
DINESHBHAI MADUBHAI MALI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
URJA B DAVE(7461) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Present Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the
Order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2018,
whereby the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dahod, by an Order
dated 06.04.2022, dismissed the said Civil Miscellaneous
Application.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their
original status in the Suit.
3. The brief facts arising out of the present Revision Application
are that the Original Plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 filed an Application for
the restoration of Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 2005, which had been
dismissed for default.
An application was subsequently filed by Plaintiff Nos. 6 and
7 to restore the said suit under the provisions of Order IX Rule 4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rejection of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/566/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
application led to the filing of the present Revision Application.
4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner (Original Plaintiffs
Nos. 6 and 7) has mainly argued that although sufficient cause was
shown by the Plaintiff in preferring the application to restore the
suit, the Trial Court erred in not allowing the said application. It was
contended that the Trial Court could not have rejected the
application filed under the provisions of Order IX Rule 4, and
therefore, the Present Revision Application is required to be allowed.
5. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff
that the Trial Court erred in holding that from 01.02.2007 to
09.12.2009 (almost three years), the matter was kept for the
Plaintiffs' Evidence, yet no evidence was produced by the Plaintiffs.
A similar finding was recorded for the periods commencing from
19.04.2010 to 02.08.2010, and from 12.09.2011 to 08.12.2011.
6. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff
that the Trial Court erred in concluding that the Rojkam reflects that
on multiple occasions, adjournment applications as well as oral
requests for adjournments were made by the Plaintiffs.
7. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff
that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the Rojkam was
not properly drawn, and therefore, the question of dismissing the suit
for default would not arise.
8. It has also been argued by the learned Advocate for the
Plaintiff that though sufficient cause for non-appearance of the
Plaintiffs was shown and reasonable grounds for the restoration of
the suit were canvassed before the Trial Court, the said request was
turned down. It was submitted that the Trial Court could not have
dismissed the said application when sufficient reasons were stated by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/566/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
the Plaintiff to restore the suit; hence, the present Application is
required to be allowed.
9. Having heard the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff, this
Court, taking into consideration the facts stated in the Application
for restoration filed under the provisions of Order IX Rule 4, finds
that no valid and sufficient cause has been stated by the Petitioner
for non-appearance on the day the matter was dismissed for default.
A review of the entire Application indicates that it primarily
provides details of the Rojkam. Crucially, at Paragraph 6, the
Applicant stated that they were advised not to remain present in the
court until the application for joining parties was decided. Moreover,
it was also stated in Paragraph 6 of the Application that the
Plaintiff's Advocate had not informed him of the fact to remain
present before the court. Consequently, on the day when the matter
was called out, the Plaintiffs were not present, and the matter was
dismissed for default.
10. In the present case, on consideration of the entire Application
and the Rojkam of the Civil Suit reveals no justification is given by
the Plaintiff for not remaining present on the day the matter was
dismissed for default. Though a liberal construction has to be taken
of the expression "sufficient cause," in the present case, there was
complete inaction on the part of the Plaintiff in not remaining
present, and no satisfactory cause was stated by the Plaintiff for not
remaining present when the matter was dismissed for default.
11. If the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, the
suit was filed in the year 2005, and the issues were framed on
01.02.2007, from 01.02.2007 till 09.12.2009, the said matter was
kept for the Plaintiffs' Evidence; however, the Plaintiff had not
produced any evidence. Thereafter, from 19.04.2010 to 02.08.2010,
the matter was again kept for the Plaintiffs' evidence, however, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/566/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Plaintiff had not produced any evidence. The same scenario was
repeated from 12.09.2011 to 08.12.2011, and in between,
applications were produced and disposed of.
12. If the application filed vide Exh. 1 i.e. Civil Misc. Application
is taken into consideration, it has been stated in the said application
that the Plaintiffs were present in the court and ready to give
evidence; however, as the court was busy with other matters, the
matter was adjourned, though no application for adjournment was
given by the Plaintiffs, however, even on the perusal of the Rojkam,
it can be clearly stated that on multiple occasions, adjournment
applications and oral submissions for adjournments have been filed
by the Plaintiff, and therefore, the contention of the Plaintiff that
they were ready with the oral and/or documentary evidence is
inconsistent with the Rojkam.
13. In the present case, no sufficient cause has been stated by the
Plaintiff for not remaining present when the matter was called out,
and the entire blame for non-appearance has been placed on the
Advocate when the matter was dismissed for default.
14. In view of the above-referred facts, this Court finds that the
Plaintiff has been negligent and there is inaction on the part of the
Plaintiff, and that no sufficient cause has been stated by the Plaintiff
to restore the suit No. 52 of 2005.
15. In view of the same facts, this Court does not find any merit in
the Civil Revision Application, and the present Civil Revision
Application is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
RAJAT YADAV
