Order 9 CPC | Date Fixed for Filing Written Statement Is Not a Date of Hearing: MP High Court Slams Dismissal of Suit, Orders Restoration After 21 Years

“Dismissal of suit on a date not fixed for hearing is not only procedurally illegal but unjust—presence of plaintiff was not even required”, In a sharply worded and procedurally significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the restoration of a civil suit that had been dismissed over 21 years ago, condemning the mechanical and illegal dismissal by the trial court and affirmance by the appellate court.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal held that a date fixed for filing written statement by the defendant is not a date of hearing, and therefore, the plaintiff’s absence on such a day cannot be treated as a default warranting dismissal.

The Court emphatically declared: “On 08.12.2003, the suit was posted for filing of the written statement by the defendants… there was no requirement of the plaintiffs to remain present.”

“Trial Court had committed illegality in dismissing the suit for want of prosecution and further erred in dismissing the restoration application without recording evidence.”

High Court Criticizes 13-Year Delay in Deciding Restoration Plea

The plaintiffs had immediately filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC in January 2004, citing the illness of the plaintiffs and an inadvertent absence of counsel. The trial court, without taking evidence, dismissed the application in 2013—nine years later. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal in 2016.

Calling out the judiciary's role in perpetuating procedural injustice, the High Court said: “They have made unnecessary exercise and took more than 13 years in deciding such application.”

“When the trial court chose to decide the matter without recording evidence and when there was no counter affidavit from defendants, it was sufficient to allow the application and restore the suit.”

Presence Not Required, Dismissal Not Permissible—High Court Reinforces Procedural Integrity

The High Court relied on precedent from its own earlier rulings and that of the Rajasthan High Court to reiterate that dismissal of a suit under Order IX Rule 8 CPC is permissible only when the plaintiff fails to appear on a date fixed for hearing, not on procedural dates like filing written statements.

“It was not a date of hearing—therefore, the dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction.”

Referring to Satish Saggar v. M.P. Industrial Centre Development Corporation, the Court reaffirmed: “After written statement is filed, then comes the stage for framing of issues and then the case is posted for hearing. The date of filing WS is not a hearing date.”

Restoration Ordered, Lower Court’s Orders Set Aside

In conclusion, Justice Bansal allowed the revision petition and restored the suit to its original number, observing: “As a result, the impugned orders passed by courts below are set aside… trial court is directed to restore the suit and proceed in accordance with law.”

This ruling serves as a judicial reminder that procedural law is meant to advance justice—not thwart it on hyper-technical grounds. It sends a clear message to subordinate courts that mechanical dismissal of cases for non-appearance without legal foundation cannot be sustained.

Date of Decision: 17 May 2025