Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 9 Rr. 4 & 3 and 9 & 8 — Application for restoration of suit — Extension of limitation period under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — Effect of practice in (Calcutta) High Court on original side of drawing up, completion and filing of order of dismissal on expiry of thirty days from date of dismissal — Held, said practice of (Calcutta) High Court has no effect on jurisdiction of court under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1963 in an appropriate case to extend time for filing application under Or. 9 R. 4 or R. 9 — Fact that records have been consigned to the record room cannot interfere with power of court to do justice in a cause — Further held, Ch. X R. 35 of the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules itself must be taken to confer power on a trial Judge to restore a suit which he had dismissed for default if sufficient cause is shown, especially in context of S. 5, Limitation Act, 1963, (2006) 6 SCC 569-A

High Courts

Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules

— Ch. X R. 35 — Dismissal of suits and proceedings under, for default — Applicability of particular provisions of CPC, 1908 — In present case, suit being adjourned several times for non-appearance of plaintiff, and then being placed on special list under Ch. X R. 35, and then being dismissed for default — Nature of such dismissal and course open to plaintiff thereagainst — Held, such a dismissal still remains a dismissal for default of the plaintiff, which could be a dismissal under Or. 9 R. 3 or R. 8 CPC — In either case the plaintiff could apply for restoration under Or. 9 R. 4 or R. 9, respectively, on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, (2006) 6 SCC 569-B

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 9 Rr. 3, 4, 8 & 9, Or. 43 R. 1(c) and Ss. 2(2) & 104 — Order of dismissal for non-prosecution or for non-appearance of plaintiff — Nature of — Held, is not a decree and is therefore not appealable as a decree, (2006) 6 SCC 569-C

High Courts

Calcutta High Court Letters Patent

— Cl. 15 — Order for dismissal for default on part of plaintiff — If amounts to <169>judgment<170> within meaning of cl. 15 — Question left open, (2006) 6 SCC 569-D

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 22 Rr. 3, 4, 11 & 12 and Or. 9 Rr. 3 & 8 — Abatement of whole appeal when impugned order attaining finality against one of many appellants — When obtains — Order rejecting application for restoration of suit attaining finality against one of several appellant-plaintiffs for non-joinder of his LRs — Effect — Question of sufficiency of representation of subject-matter of suit before court — Relevance — Held, the whole appeal abates as court cannot pass an inconsistent decree in the same suit by granting a decree to the other plaintiffs when dismissal of the suit had become final as against one plaintiff, (2006) 6 SCC 569-E