Litigant Can't Suffer For Counsel Noting Wrong Date: Rajasthan High Court Restores Suit Subject To Costs, Planting 25 Trees

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer for an inadvertent mistake on part of his/her counsel in noting the next date of hearing of case, and thus quashed the trial court order that rejected petitioner's restoration application on technical grounds of delay in an eviction suit that was dismissed in default.While directing restoration of the matter, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the petitioner, as well as directed him to plant 25 saplings of shade bearing trees in a public vicinity and submit their photographs to the Court as proof, along with an undertaking to take care of them. A suit for eviction and mesne profits was filed by the petitioners against the respondents in 1989, in which the Court had fixed a date for recording of evidence. This date was wrongly noted by the petitioner's counsel owing to which the counsel could not attend the hearing, and the case was dismissed in default. An application under Order 9 Rule 9 for restoration of the case was filed by the petitioner along with an application for condonation of delay under the Limitations Act. The delay in filing the restoration application beyond the statutory period of 30 days was on account of the petitioners being out of town due to some personal and urgent domestic work. However, despite the same, the application was rejected by the trial court on the ground of delay. Hence, the petition was filed before the Court. After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that there was a slight delay which was not fatal or prolonged, and even that slight delay was satisfactorily explained. Further, the Court highlighted that the suit was regarding eviction or non-eviction, and hence, was liable to be decided on its merits, after recording of evidence and consideration of overall facts. Hence, it was held that the trial court had committed an error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, and the order was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court directed restoration of the case to its original number, and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was directed to plant and take care of 25 saplings of shades trees in public vicinity, and share photos with the Court as proof. Title: Smt. Rashidan & Anr. v Smt. Noorjahan & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 23Click Here To Read/Download Order

Litigant Can't Suffer For Counsel Noting Wrong Date: Rajasthan High Court Restores Suit Subject To Costs, Planting 25 Trees

Nupur Agrawal

Tags