IN THE COURT OF ANJALI NARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE,
JUNIOR DIVISION, GURUGRAM, HARYANA
CIS NO CS/132/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
RUCHIPACK INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
…...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PRAMOD PAREEK
…...DEFENDANT
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION FILED
UNDER ORDER IX RULE 4 CPC SEEKING RESTORTION OF SUIT
Most respectfully showeth:
Preliminary Submissions:-
1. That the present application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order
IX Rule 4 CPC seeking restoration of the suit dismissed for default is not
maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary cost as the same is barred by limitation, devoid of
sufficient cause, and filed merely to harass the answering defendant.
2. That the main civil suit filed by the applicant was dismissed for
default on 09.07.2024, due to the non-appearance of the
applicant/plaintiff and their counsel. It is also submitted that the
applicant was fully aware of the said dismissal order, yet has
approached this Hon’ble Court after an inordinate and unexplained
delay, beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under the
Limitation Act.
3. That as per Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application to
restore a suit dismissed for default must be filed within 30 days from
the date of such dismissal. The present restoration application has
been filed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period,
without any plausible or sufficient explanation for the delay. Therefore,
the application is hopelessly barred by limitation and deserves
outright rejection.
4. That the applicant has not shown any “sufficient cause” as required
under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for non-appearance or for the subsequent
delay.
The reasons stated in the application are vague, afterthought, and
unsupported by any evidence. Mere negligence or oversight does not
constitute sufficient cause for restoration.
5. That the delay in filing this restoration application is deliberate,
intentional, and with the sole motive of prolonging litigation and causing
harassment to the defendant. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held
that lack of diligence on part of a litigant disentitles him from the
discretionary relief of restoration.
6. That the applicant has been grossly negligent in pursuing the matter
and cannot take advantage of his own wrong. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has time and again emphasized that equity cannot override
statutory limitation.
7. That since the original suit stood dismissed for default on 09.07.2024
and no restoration was sought within limitation, the order of dismissal
has attained finality. Hence, the present application is not maintainable
and deserves to be dismissed with cost.
REPLY PARA-WISE :-
1. That the contents of para 1 of the application are matter of record.
However, the nature of the suit being under Order XXXVII CPC does not
entitle the plaintiff to restoration as a matter of right. The plaintiff has
failed to comply with the mandatory procedural diligence required under
law.
2. That the contents of para 2 are admitted to the extent that the present
suit was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 09.07.2024 due to non-
appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. It is, however, denied that
the plaintiff was unaware of the said order. The plaintiff was duly
represented before this Hon’ble Court earlier and had full knowledge of
the pendency of the case. Hence, ignorance cannot be pleaded as a
ground for restoration.
3. That the contents of para 3 are wrong and denied. The alleged busy
schedule of the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff is not a legally
sustainable ground for restoration. Every litigant is under an obligation
to be vigilant regarding his case. Business affairs cannot justify
deliberate absence from court.
4. That the contents of para 4 are false and denied. The plaintiff has not
produced any affidavit, letter, or correspondence from his previous
counsel to substantiate his allegation that counsel failed to inform him.
It is settled law that negligence of counsel cannot be treated as
sufficient cause.
5. That the contents of para 5 are denied as misconceived. The plaintiff’s
claim of acquiring knowledge only in October 2024 is false, fabricated,
and made solely to circumvent limitation. The order dated 09.07.2024
was passed in open court and is available on the court record system
(ECourts portal). Hence, limitation begins from the date of dismissal, not
from the date of alleged knowledge.
6. That the contents of para 6 are denied. The present application has
been filed after more than 120 days from the date of dismissal
(09.07.2024), whereas Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides
only 30 days for restoration. Hence, the application is barred by
limitation and is liable to be dismissed outright.
7. That the contents of para 7 are denied. The plaintiff has failed to show
any “sufficient cause” for non-appearance or subsequent delay. The
explanation furnished is vague, self-serving, and unsupported by any
proof. The absence of the plaintiff is deliberate and amounts to gross
negligence.
8. That the contents of para 8 are specifically denied. The plaintiff cannot
escape consequences of his own inaction or the alleged negligence of
his counsel. The law does not protect negligent litigants.
9. That the contents of para 9 are wrong and denied. The plaintiff cannot
compute limitation from the alleged date of knowledge. There is no legal
provision permitting such calculation in absence of fraud or
concealment. The suit stood dismissed long ago, and this application is
filed merely to delay the proceedings and harass the defendant.
Reply to Prayer Clause:-
That in view of the facts stated above, the prayer clause deserves to be
rejected as the application is (i) barred by limitation, (ii) devoid of
sufficient cause, and (iii) an abuse of process of law. Hence, the present
application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost in the
interest of justice
Prayer:-
In view of the afore-stated facts, law and submissions, the Respondent
prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Dismiss the present application as not maintainable, time-barred,
and an abuse of process, with heavy cost.
2. Award costs of the proceedings to the Respondent in favour of
the Respondent’s Advocates’ Association (or as this Court
deems fit) for having been compelled to contest a hopeless
application.
3. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Date: Defendant
Place: Gurugram
Parmod Pareek S/O Sh. Nandlal
Through Counsel: R/O Leekhwa, Leekhwa, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan-333031.
[LOKESH VASHISHT –ADVOCATE]
PARA NO. 4
Relied Judgment:
Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Pvt. Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185 — "A litigant cannot disown the acts
and omissions of his counsel."
PARA NO. 5
Relied Judgment:
Ramandeep @ Billu v. Maninder Singh Bedi, CR No. 3389 of 2015, P&H High Court,
decided on 18.10.2022 — “Mere plea of late knowledge is not sufficient to condone
delay.”
PARA NO. 6
Relied Judgment:
Bhagwan Dass v. Om Parkash, 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 890 (P&H HC) — “Restoration
application filed beyond limitation without sufficient cause deserves dismissal.”
Also see: Shyam Sunder Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal, (2005) 1 SCC 436.
PARA NO. 8
Relied Judgment:
Kailash Devi v. Mansa Ram, (2015) 178 PLR 456 (P&H HC) — “Negligence of counsel does
not constitute sufficient cause for restoration.”
Also see: Rajinder Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2019 (4) RCR (Civil) 223 — “Restoration
cannot be claimed as a matter of right; discretion depends on diligence.”
PAYER CLAUSE
Relied Judgment:
M/s Mahinder Pal & Sons v. State of Haryana, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 477 (P&H HC) —
“Restoration application filed beyond limitation without sufficient cause was dismissed
with ₹5,000 cost.”
Also see: Chander Mohan v. State of Haryana, 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 114 (P&H HC) —
“Courts must discourage negligent litigants by imposing costs.”
ORAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
(Opposing Application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC)
Sir, At the outset, the present application filed by the plaintiff is wholly misconceived,
time-barred, and devoid of any sufficient cause, and deserves outright dismissal.
1. Application is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation:
Your Honour, the suit was dismissed in default on 09.07.2024. Under Article 122 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation prescribed is 30 days. The present application has
been filed after more than 120 days. No application for condonation of delay under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed.
Therefore, the application is ex facie barred by limitation and is liable to be rejected at
the threshold. It is also patient to mention here that is settled law that limitation goes to
the root of maintainability.
2. “Date of Knowledge” Plea is Legally Unsustainable:
The plaintiff has attempted to bypass limitation by pleading date of knowledge in
October 2024.
This plea is legally untenable. In absence of fraud or concealment, limitation runs from
the date of order, not from alleged knowledge. The order was passed in open Court and
is available on the eCourts system. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plea of
“late knowledge” is a mere afterthought to overcome limitation.
3. No “Sufficient Cause” Shown – Mandatory Requirement Not Satisfied
Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the plaintiff must establish:
Sufficient cause for non-appearance, AND Sufficient cause for delay
In the present case:
The reasons cited are vague and unsupported
No affidavit of previous counsel, No documentary proof whatsoever. It is trite law that
bald allegations do not constitute sufficient cause.
4. Negligence of Party / Counsel is Not a Ground:
The plaintiff has attempted to shift blame upon counsel. However, it is a settled principle
that: Negligence or inaction of counsel is attributable to the party. A litigant must remain
vigilant. If such pleas are accepted, finality of judicial proceedings will be destroyed.
5. Conduct of Plaintiff Shows Lack of Diligence:
Your Honour, the conduct is very material: Plaintiff remained absent on the date of
hearing, No steps taken within limitation & Application filed after prolonged delay. This
reflects gross negligence and lack of bona fides.
6. Discretion Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC is Not Automatic: Restoration is not a matter of
right, but a discretionary relief. Such discretion cannot be exercised in favour of a party
who is: Negligent, Indolent & Seeking to abuse process.
7. Proceedings Have Attained Finality: The dismissal order dated 09.07.2024 has attained
finality. The present application is an attempt to reopen concluded proceedings, Law
favours finality of litigation, not endless revival.
8. Abuse of Process of Law:
The present application is: Filed after limitation, Without sufficient cause, Based on false
pleas, Hence, it amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
PRAYER (ORAL): In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that:
The present application be dismissed with costs, As it is barred by limitation, devoid of
merit, and an abuse of process.
🔹 Optional Case Laws (Add if Court asks)
You may cite:
Ramlal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. – Limitation must be strictly applied
Balwant Singh vs Jagdish Singh – “Sufficient cause” must be bona fide
Salil Dutta vs T.M. & M.C. Pvt. Ltd. – Counsel negligence not always ground
P&H High Court: Strict view on delay & restoration