Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default

“Sufficient Cause Shown—Presence Before Magistrate Proved—Restoration Warranted Under Order IX Rule 9 CPC”, In a decision upholding fairness in procedural justice, the Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a civil suit that was struck off for default due to the plaintiff’s absence on the date of hearing. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that the plaintiff’s presence before a Magistrate Court in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the same day was a “sufficient cause” for his absence in the civil court.

The Court observed: “The plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance on 19.10.2016 and has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the restoration application. The record clearly reflects that he was attending criminal proceedings initiated by the defendant herself.”

The appeal was allowed, the orders dated 19.10.2016 and 28.08.2017 were set aside, and the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction stood restored for adjudication on merits.

Civil Suit Dismissed For Default While Plaintiff Was Present In Criminal Case Filed By Opponent

The background of the case involves a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant, Naresh Sukhdev Sindhe, which was listed for hearing on maintainability on 19.10.2016 before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. However, on the same day, the plaintiff was also required to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the NI Act—a criminal proceeding filed by the same defendant (respondent no.1).

Despite having filed an exemption application dated 06.09.2016 in advance, citing this scheduling conflict, the civil court dismissed the suit for non-appearance. A subsequent restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC along with a delay condonation plea was also dismissed, prompting the present appeal.

Justice Sudha found that the appellant’s apprehension about penal consequences in the criminal case was justified, and his prior efforts to seek exemption underscored his bona fides:

“The exemption application filed weeks in advance shows that the plaintiff was not negligent or careless. His presence before the Magistrate is corroborated by the order in CC No. 2732/1 and supports the explanation offered.”

Delay In Restoration Application Explained—Court Condoned One-Month Delay As Neither Inordinate Nor Malicious

While the application for restoration was filed 30 days after the prescribed limitation period, the Court found that the delay was both reasonable and explained.

The plaintiff had submitted that he was unaware of the dismissal until informed by the defendant’s counsel, after which he applied for certified copies and approached the Legal Aid Cell for assistance. Restoration was promptly sought through legal aid counsel.

Justice Sudha clarified:

“The suit was dismissed on 19.10.2016. Certified copy was applied on 25.10.2016 and received by 05.11.2016. The application was filed by 19.12.2016—this delay is not inordinate or unexplained, especially given the litigant’s limited access to legal representation.”

The Court emphasized that procedural rigour must yield to genuine difficulty, especially when the litigant had acted in good faith and taken necessary steps within a reasonable timeframe.

“Lapses of Counsel Should Not Penalise Litigants”: Court Reiterates Equity In Procedure

A key factor that weighed with the Court was the dual failure—both the plaintiff and his counsel had failed to appear due to attendance in the criminal matter. The defendant had argued that both courts were within the same complex and the plaintiff could have appeared later in the day. However, the Court rejected that contention:

“While both courts may be in the same complex, the plaintiff’s presence in a criminal matter—especially one involving potential penal consequences—cannot be discounted. A litigant should not be penalised for a scheduling conflict beyond his control, especially when the conflicting matter was filed by the very same defendant.”

The Court further reminded that procedural dismissals should not override substantive justice, particularly when no prejudice is caused to the other side and the matter can still be decided on merits.

Orders Set Aside, Suit Restored For Adjudication On Merits

Justice Sudha concluded by restoring Civil Suit No. 609215/2016 to its original number and directing that the matter be proceeded in accordance with law. However, the Court clarified:

“Nothing in this order shall affect the merits of the case.”

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s sensitivity to real-life challenges faced by litigants, especially in managing multiple proceedings, and reiterates that procedural default should not become a tool for defeating substantive rights where bona fide conduct is established.

Date of Decision: December 5, 2025