Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Chirayu Pharmaceuticals Thru. ... vs M/S Mercury M. Agency Pvt. Ltd. ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26091
1 CR-1040-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 1040 of 2025
M/S CHIRAYU PHARMACEUTICALS THRU. PARTNER MANMOHAN
CHHAPARWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S MERCURY M. AGENCY PVT. LTD. THRUASHOK GUPTA AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari and Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi- Advocate for
the applicants.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed against
order dated 08/08/2025 passed by XX District Judge (Commercial), Gwalior
in MJC No.208/2023 by which the civil suit, which was dismissed on
13/02/2023, has been restored.
2. It appears that plaintiff was already examined, and he was cross-
examined on 10/02/2023. Since, his cross-examination could not conclude
on account of the fact that working hours were over, the case was adjourned
for 13/02/2023. On 13/02/2023, plaintiff did not appear and accordingly, the
suit was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C.
Thereafter, an application for restoration of suit was filed on the ground that
since, cross-examination continued till working hours of the Court were over
and, therefore, plaintiff was not aware of the fact that case shall be taken up
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26091
2 CR-1040-2025
on next working day i.e. 13/02/2023. On 13/02/2023, a request was made by
counsel for plaintiff that the case may be taken up on 14/02/2023 because
plaintiff is out of station, but the suit was dismissed. By the impugned order,
the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 8 read
with Rule 9 of C.P.C. and has restored the suit back to its original file.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by
counsel for applicants that since, the suit was an old one, therefore, the Trial
Court should not have restored it.
4. Heard the learned counsel for applicants.
5. It is well established principle of law that every effort should be
made to decide the lis on merit, unless and until it is found that plaintiff was
deliberately avoiding the hearing of the case.
6. In the present case, it is clear that plaintiff was partially cross-
examined on 10/02/2023. Whether, he was aware of the fact that the case
shall be taken up on 13/02/2023, is the only disputed question of fact.
However, application under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. was filed on 21/03/2023,
i.e., without any much delay.
7. Under these circumstances, when the plaintiff was regularly
appearing for his examination-in-chief as well as for cross-examination, then
the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by allowing the application filed
under Order 9 Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of C.P.C.
8. As no illegality was committed by the Court below and the Court
below has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and, accordingly, this
revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26091
3 CR-1040-2025
9. However, counsel for applicants was right in submitting that since,
the suit is an old one, therefore, the Trial Court may be directed to
expeditiously decide the trial.
10. In the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case
of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & ors. decided
on 29/02/2024 i n CRA No.3589/2023 , it is directed that without disturbing
its Board, Trial Court shall make every endeavour to expeditiously disposed
of the suit.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
