Jharkhand High Court
Shila Mishra vs Mala Devi on 12 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:15193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 131 of 2024
----
Shila Mishra, aged about 51 years, wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra,
resident of Satyam Nagar, Near Vaishali Hotel, Barwa Road, P.O. & P.S.
Barwadda, District- Dhanbad.
.... Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant
-- Versus --
Mala Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Burnwal,
resident of Sahyogi Nagar, Sector-2, Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S. -
Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad-828127.
.... Respondent/Applicant/Plaintiff
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondent :- Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate
----
04/12.06.2025 Heard Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the
sole-opposite party, who is appearing on instruction of Mr. Kalyan
Banerjee, the learned counsel on the record.
2. This C.M.P. has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for quashing the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No.41 of 2023
(Arising out of Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 by which the learned Court has
been pleased to allow the recalling the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in
Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 and the said Misc. Case was restored to
its original file subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-.
3. Ms. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the respondent herein instituted Civil Misc. Case No.34 of
2019 for seeking enforcement of judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016
2025:JHHC:15193
signed on 11.11.2016 in Title Suit No.52 of 2008. The plaintiff
(respondent herein) has filed the said suit against the defendant-
respondent for relief in the nature of Specific Performance of Contract
dated 15.12.2005, the said suit was decreed by the judgment dated
06.10.2016 directing therein to execute registered sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff/applicant (respondent herein), in respect of land and
thereafter, the said Misc. Case has been filed for enforcement of
judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 decree signed on 11.11.2016.
She further submits that in terms of the said judgment and decree, the
respondent (herein) was directed to deposit the remaining consideration
amount of Rs.21,000/- which was paid through e-challan to the
respondent/defendant on 25.05.2022 and the plaintiff was directed to file
the draft-deed before the learned Court but the draft-deed was not filed
before the learned Court within time and in view of that the said Civil
Misc. Case No.34 of 2019 was dismissed for default vide order dated
31.03.2023. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Case No.41 of 2023 was filed on
02.05.2023 before the learned Court for restoration of Civil Misc. Case
No.34 of 2019 to its original file which was allowed. She submits that on
notice, the petitioner herein is appeared before the learned Court.
However, the learned Court has allowed the restoration. She further
submits that the dismissal order was dated 31.03.2023, whereas the
restoration petition was filed on 02.05.2023 and the learned Court has
allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2023. On these
grounds she submits that the said impugned order may kindly be set
aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole-opposite party oppose
2025:JHHC:15193
the prayer and submit that the compliance of the order/ judgment of the
learned Court was already been made, even Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One
Thousand) was deposited through the e-challan. However, due to some
inadvertence within time the draft-deed was not presented before the
Court and in view of that, the same was dismissed. However, within
limitation period, the restoration petition was filed which has been
allowed by the learned Court considering the spirit of C.P.C as well as law
of limitation. He submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned
order.
5. It is an admitted position that the suit decreed in favour of the
respondent-herein and for implementation of the said judgment Misc.
Case No.34 of 2019 was instituted and further even the Rs.21,000/- was
deposited by the e-challan in the light of the order dated 09.05.2022 of
the learned Court. However, inadvertently, the draft-deed was not
deposited with in time and in view of that the said Misc. Case was
dismissed on 31.03.2023 and on 02.05.2023 itself the restoration petition
was filed which has been allowed by the learned Court. Learned Court
while allowing the said petition has considered all these aspects and has
come to the conclusion that the Court should adopt justice oriented
approach while deciding application under Order 9 of Rule 9 of C.P.C.,
and in view of that the learned Court has restored the Misc. Case No.34
of 2019 to its original file.
6. The words "sufficient cause" appearing in Rule 4, Order 9, C.P.C.
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice
when no negligence nor want of bona fide is imputable to the party.
Sufficient cause must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party
2025:JHHC:15193
and will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
What has been discussed hereinabove the remaining amount has also
been deposited by way of e-challan, the restoration petition has been
filed just after dismissal which has been allowed by the learned Court.
Considering that the court is required to take a lenient view if sufficient
cause is made out and in view of that the said order has been passed.
7. In the above background and further the facts and reasons the
Court finds there is no illegality in the impugned order and as such this
petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
S.Das/
