Courts Must Be 'Adjudication-Friendly' In Restoration Pleas, Especially When Trial Is Complete: J&K&L High Court

Emphasising that justice should not be defeated by technical lapses, the Court underscored that once a lis has matured for final adjudication, denial of a merits-based decision would be unjust and iniquitous.

These significant observations were made by a Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti while allowing an appeal and restoring a civil suit that had been dismissed for non-prosecution despite having been pending for over sixteen years and posted for final arguments.

It remarked,

“… Every endeavour should be made by the courts to decide on merits the lis which has matured for adjudication… Denying the appellant of his right to get the suit adjudicated on merits, particularly when he was vigorously pursuing the same for 16 long years, just because of delay, would be unjust and iniquitous”

Background:

The case stemmed from a civil suit filed by M/s Ram Kour Behari Lal and Co. seeking recovery of ₹5.58 lakh from M/s Hakam Chand and Co. and others. Initially instituted before the High Court in 1996, the suit was later transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, Jammu. Over the years, the suit progressed steadily: the plaintiff's evidence was concluded, followed by the closure of the defendants' evidence in March 2010. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.

However, on account of repeated non-appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, the trial court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. A restoration application, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of about 560 days, was later filed but came to be rejected by the Commercial Court. Aggrieved by this rejection, the plaintiff approached the High Court in appeal under Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate, contended that the trial court had adopted a mechanical and hyper-technical approach. He submitted that the suit had been diligently prosecuted for sixteen long years and was dismissed only at the stage of final arguments, when nothing further remained to be done by the plaintiff.

It was further argued that under Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of the CPC, the trial court ought to have decided the suit on merits since evidence on both sides had already been concluded. The appellant also assailed the rejection of the restoration application on the ground that it was filed without a vakalatnama, submitting that subsequent pleadings were signed and affirmed personally by the appellant, thereby curing any procedural defect.

Court's Findings:

After carefully examining the record, the High Court noted that the suit had reached the stage of final arguments after completion of evidence on both sides and had remained pending for over a decade and a half. The Bench observed that when a suit has matured for adjudication, courts should make every endeavour to decide it on merits rather than terminating it on technical defaults.

In a crucial observation, the Court held,

“When a suit in particular pending for final arguments is dismissed for non-prosecution, an adjudication-friendly approach is required while considering an application, be it for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration or for restoration of such suit, unless and until the purported cause put up is nothing but to honeyfuggle the court.”

The Court further found fault with the trial court's insistence on technical compliance regarding the vakalatnama. It noted that notices had been issued by the trial court itself without raising objections and that subsequent affidavits and applications signed personally by the appellant clearly manifested his intention to prosecute the restoration plea. Such procedural irregularities, the Bench held, could not be treated as fatal.

Invoking the principle that no litigant should suffer due to an act or omission of the court or its administration, the High Court held that the dismissal of the restoration application on such grounds was unsustainable.

Highlighting the long pendency of the suit and the diligence shown by the appellant over sixteen years, the Bench observed that the cause shown for delay was neither imaginary nor fanciful. It cautioned that denying a litigant the right to have his suit adjudicated on merits, particularly at such an advanced stage, would amount to grave injustice.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court, condoned the delay in filing the restoration application, and restored the suit to its original number. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

Case Title: M/s Ram Kour Behari Lal and Co Vs M/s Hakam Chand and Co. and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment