Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Fresh Hearing on Order 9 Rule 13 Plea, Says Litigant Should Not Suffer for Counsel’s Lapse

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 240

April 8, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside orders of the trial court rejecting applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground of delay, holding that a litigant should not be deprived of an opportunity to contest a case on merits due to the negligence of counsel. The Court directed fresh consideration of the applications and reiterated that a liberal approach must be adopted while dealing with such pleas, including those filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The ruling came in a batch of appeals led by Ramkrishn Sahu v. Kamal Prasad Kasar (2026 LN (HC) 240), where the appellants challenged the trial court’s refusal to set aside an ex parte decree.

The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning agricultural land, where the plaintiff claimed ownership and alleged that a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant was forged. It was contended that the defendant, acting on the basis of the alleged forged document, executed sale deeds to third parties. The trial court accepted the plaintiff’s case and decreed the suit ex parte after the defendants failed to participate at the stage of evidence, relying in part on expert opinion which found that the signatures and thumb impressions on the power of attorney did not match those of the plaintiff.

The first defendant later approached the trial court under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, stating that after filing the written statement, he was assured by his counsel that he would be informed about hearing dates, but no such communication was made. He claimed that he became aware of the ex parte decree only upon receiving notice in mutation proceedings. An application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed, attributing the delay to lack of proper legal guidance and the previous counsel’s inaction. However, the trial court dismissed both applications solely on the ground of delay without examining the merits of the case.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while allowing the appeals, observed that the explanation offered by the appellants indicated that their absence was not deliberate but occurred due to the lapse of counsel. The Court reiterated the settled position that while considering applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, courts must adopt a liberal approach to ensure that parties are not denied the chance to contest matters on merits.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981), which held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer for the fault, negligence or inaction of his advocate. It emphasised that once a party entrusts a case to counsel, he is entitled to assume that the matter will be properly handled, and cannot be expected to constantly monitor proceedings.

On examining the record, the High Court found that the trial court had taken an unduly technical view by rejecting the applications purely on the ground of delay. It held that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive rights.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 05.01.2022, condoned the delay in filing the applications, and remanded the matters back to the trial court for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The trial court has been directed to decide the applications expeditiously, preferably within 30 days from the appearance of the parties. The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Case Reference : MA No. 22 of 2022 (Ramkrishn Sahu vs Kamal Prasad Kasar & Ors.), MA No. 20 of 2022 (Dilip Sahu vs Kamal Prasad Kasar & Ors.), MA No. 21 of 2022 (Hemlal Sahu vs Kamal Prasad Kasar), MA No. 17 of 2022 (Tirith Sahu vs Kamal Prasad Kasar & Ors.), MA No. 16 of 2022 (Lalaram vs Kamal Prasad Kasar & Ors.), MA No. 19 of 2022 (Lalji Sahu vs Kamal Prasad Kasar & Ors.), MA No. 18 of 2022 (Jivrakhan Sahu vs Kamal Prasad Kasar & Ors.); Counsels: for Appellants – Mr. T. K. Jha with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocates; for Respondent No. 1 – Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate; for Respondent No. 2 – None (though served); for State – Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. with Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.