SMT SUMEDHA CHOPRA v. SHRI SHITAL KUMAR BHANDARI & ANR.

1. The petitioner/defendant has assailed order dated 03.07.2025 of the learned trial court whereby application under Section 151 CPC filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking clarification/revival/restoration and listing of the suit was allowed after detailed discussion.

2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to issue notice, though learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs has appeared through videoconferencing on advance intimation.

3. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are that the present respondents filed a suit against the present petitioner/defendant for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises and rent/mesne profits. In the normal course of events, after partly decreeing of the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession of the tenanted premises, the trial court would have proceeded further with the trial on the issue of rent/mesne profits or would have initiated inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. But in the present case due to inadvertence, after decreeing the suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the learned trial court consigned the suit file to record room vide order dated 08.05.2024. On being pointed out by the respondents/plaintiffs, the learned trial court realized the error and took a view (para 16 of impugned order) that no party should suffer due to act of the Court. Accordingly, the suit was restored to its original number and after framing the issues, it was posted for recording plaintiff’s evidence by way of the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner strongly contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the review/appeal of order dated 08.05.2024 had become barred by time. Learned counsel for petitioner also contends that the error could not be rectified invoking Section 151 CPC or even Section 152 CPC. Further, it is argued that had the present respondents/plaintiffs not filed the application under Section 151 CPC, the impugned order would not have come into existence and it is not understandable as to why the respondents/plaintiffs remained silent all this while and did not move any application before the trial court.

5. It is trite that law of limitation binds only the litigant and not the Court. More so, when the Court realizes an inadvertent error and rectifies the error, there is no illegality in that. For, as rightly opined by the learned trial court in the impugned order, for inadvertence of the Court, no litigant should suffer.

6. So far as the question as to why the respondents/plaintiffs remained silent, it is not unheard that where suit and counter-claim are running parallel to each other, the litigants remain under impression that both proceedings continue to be pending. In the present case also, admittedly, counter-claim filed by the present petitioner was running parallel to the suit and remains pending.

7. Further, as rightly and elaborately discussed by the learned trial court in the impugned order, mere wrong mentioning of the provision of law cannot lead to summary dismissal of the proceedings. It is the content of the dispute and not the form of the application which is relevant. Therefore, the learned trial court treated the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC as an application under Section 152 read with Section 153 CPC and allowed the same.

8. The fact remains that the learned trial court having realized that the suit file was wrongly consigned to record, leaving a major part of the dispute undecided, rectified the error by restoring the suit. I am unable to find any infirmity in the said decision of the learned trial court.

9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is upheld.

10. Consequently, the petition as well as the accompanying applications are dismissed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 24, 2025