Meghalaya High Court
Shri Ganesh Roy vs . 1. Smti Sukla Roy on 17 June, 2025
2025:MLHC:518
Serial No.19
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
CRP No.2 of 2025 Date of Order: 17.06.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri Ganesh Roy Vs. 1. Smti Sukla Roy
S/o (L) Birendra Kr. Roy, W/o (L) Pejush K. Roy,
R/o Nakham Bazar, Tura, R/o Nakham Bazar, Tura,
West Garo Hills District, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya. Meghalaya.
2. Shri Prithish Roy
S/o (L) Pejush K. Roy,
R/o Nakham Bazar, Tura,
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
.......Petitioner. ......Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. R. Paske, Adv. (R: 1 & 2).
Page 1 of 4
2025:MLHC:518
ORAL:-
Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. R.
Paske, learned Counsel for the respondents.
1. By this revision petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing and
setting aside of the impugned order dated 05-07-2022 passed in Misc. Case
No. 9 of 2023 arising out of TS No. 6 of 2022 by the learned Assistant to
Deputy Commissioner (J), Tura. A further prayer has been made for
restoration of the TS No. 6 of 2022 back to file which was dismissed for
default by the Trial Court.
2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted TS No.6 of 2022 in the Court of
Assistant to Deputy Commissioner (J), Tura against the respondents herein
praying for declaration of right, title and ownership and for other reliefs
over the suit land. During the pendency, the TS No.6 of 2022 was
dismissed for default on 12-07-2023 because of non-appearance of the
petitioner before the Trial Court. After the dismissal of the suit, the
petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151
CPC on 10-08-2023 praying for restoration of the title suit. The application
was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 2023. The learned Trial Court after
hearing the parties rejected the said application for restoration by order
dated 05-07-2024 as the Court was not satisfied with the reasons and
explanations offered by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
3. Mr. S. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Trial Court committed a gross error in law by not appreciating the
explanations offered by the petitioner with regard to the reasons for his
previous non-appearance before the Trial Court. He submits that a perusal
of the contents of the application for restoration would show that the suit
Page 2 of 4
2025:MLHC:518was dismissed mainly on the ground of default of the lawyer appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. He submits that it is a settled position of law that a
party cannot be victimized or made to suffer for the fault of his lawyer. He,
therefore, submits that the impugned order may be interfered with and a
direction be issued for restoration of the TS No. 6 of 2022 back to file so
that the same can proceed and decided on merits in accordance with law.
4. Mr. P. R. Paske, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, objects to the prayer made on behalf the petitioner and submits that
there were numerous occasions on which the petitioner defaulted in
appearance before the Trial Court. By referring to the observations made
by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 05-07-2024, the
learned Counsel submits that the petitioner failed to proceed with the suit
diligently in spite of the several opportunities granted to the petitioner. He,
thus, submits that the order of the Trial Court cannot be faulted with and
prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the materials on record, it transpires that the TS No.6 of 2022 was
dismissed on 12-07-2023. After the dismissal of the TS No.6 of 2022, the
petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit on 10-08-2023
within the time stipulated by law. There was no delay on the part of the
petitioner to apply for restoration of the suit. Further, it appears from the
observation made by the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 05-07-
2024 that the reasons for default in appearance of the petitioner were
mainly due to the fault of his lawyer. None of the observations made
therein are with regard to the personal conduct of the petitioner. Thus, it
would not be proper to make the petitioner suffer for the fault of his lawyer.
The fact that the petitioner approached the Trial Court with the application
Page 3 of 4
2025:MLHC:518
for restoration of the suit within the time stipulated by law is an indication
of the fact that the petitioner is desirous to proceed with the suit.
6. In the above circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to interfere
with the impugned order dated 05-07-2024 passed in Misc. Case No.9 of
2023 by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner (J), Tura and the
same is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the TS No.6 of 2022 stands restored
back to file. The parties are directed to appear before the Trail Court on
28-07-2025.
7. With the above, this revision petition stands allowed.
Judge
Meghalaya
17.06.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.06.17 18:49:04 IST