Litigant Cannot Suffer For Counsel’s Mistake: Rajasthan High Court Restores Eviction Suit Dismissed For Default

The trial court’s order had rejected the petitioner’s restoration application on technical grounds of delay in an eviction suit that had been dismissed in default.

A Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held, “The suit is ordered to be restored to its original number and the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16.02.2026 provided the plaintiffs would pay a cost of Rs.10,000/ to the defendants on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 16.02.2026 and would plant 25 saplings/plants of shaded trees in public vicinity area before the next date of trial Court.”

The Court added, “The plaintiff shall submit a proof in this regard along-with photographs before the trial Court along-with an undertaking that he would take care of these plants till the plants grown up or till final disposal of the suit.”

Advocate Mohammed Anees appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Samar Pratap Singh Naruka appeared for the Respondents.

The case dates back to 1989, when the petitioners had filed a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profits against the respondents. A date was fixed by the Court for recording evidence, which the petitioner’s counsel failed to attend due to erroneously noting the hearing date. As a result, the suit was dismissed in default. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration of the case under Order 9 Rule 9, along with a petition for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. The delay in filing was attributed to the petitioner being out of town for personal and urgent domestic reasons.

Despite these explanations, the trial court rejected the restoration application, citing the delay. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court observed, “the delay was not such which could be held to be fatal or prolonged. There was a slight delay, which has been satisfactorily explained by the plaintiffs and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application submitted by the plaintiffs.”

The Court emphasized, “Looking to the fact that important question of law and facts are involved in the suit with regard to eviction or non-eviction of the defendants and the same is liable to be decided on its merits by the trial Court, at the appropriate stage, after recording the evidence of both the sides and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the order impugned is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed and set-aside. ”

Finding the trial court’s rejection of the restoration application to be erroneous, the High Court set aside the order and restored the case to its original number. In addition to imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, the Court directed the planting of 25 shade-bearing saplings in a public area, requiring the petitioner to submit photographs as proof and provide an undertaking to maintain the trees, thereby promoting social responsibility alongside legal compliance.

Cause Title: Smt. Rashidan & Anr. v. Smt. Noorjahan Widow of Abdul Hameed & Ors.

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Mohammed Anees

Respondents: Senior Advocate M. M. Ranjan, Advocates Samar Pratap Singh Naruka & Lokesh Tiwari