Order 9 Rule 9 CPC Application Template

About this agreement

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9, RULE 9, C. P. C.

Facing an ex parte decree that wasn't properly served? Secure your rights with our ready-to-use Application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. format – downloadable in PDF or Word format for free in India.

An Application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a crucial legal document filed by a defendant to set aside an ex parte decree passed in their absence. Under Indian civil law, courts often pronounce ex parte decrees when defendants fail to appear despite summons. This application allows you to challenge such decrees if you can prove sufficient cause for your non-appearance, restoring the suit to its original position for a fair hearing.

Why is an Application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. Format Important?

This application is vital in civil litigation across India, preventing injustice from procedural lapses. Ex parte decrees can lead to attachment of property, recovery of money, or other adverse orders without your defense. Filing this under Order IX Rule 9 CPC ensures your day in court, upholding principles of natural justice. It's commonly used in High Courts, District Courts, and Civil Courts where summons service was defective or unavoidable circumstances prevented appearance. Timely filing within 30 days (or with condonation delay) is key, making a professional template indispensable for compliance with court requirements.

Key Elements of Application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC Sample

A well-drafted Application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. format includes:

Court Details: Name of the court, suit number, parties involved.
Facts of the Case: Brief suit history, date of ex parte decree, and reasons for non-appearance (e.g., improper service, illness, travel).
Sufficient Cause: Affidavit-supported evidence proving no willful default.
Prayer Clause: Specific request to set aside the decree and restore the suit.
Verification: Signed by applicant or authorized representative.
Annexures: Copies of summons, decree, and supporting documents.

Our legal template ensures all these elements are covered, making it ready-to-use and customizable for your specific case.

Who Should Use This Application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC Template?

Ideal for defendants in civil suits involving property disputes, debt recovery, family matters, or commercial claims in India. Businesses facing ex parte orders in contract breaches, individuals in eviction cases, or anyone served improperly benefit from this format. Lawyers, law students, or self-represented litigants (pro se) in District Courts, Sessions Courts, or High Courts under CPC jurisdiction will find it invaluable.

Download Your Customizable Application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. Now!

Don't let an ex parte decree stand unchallenged. Download our free Application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC sample in editable Word or PDF format today. Customize it effortlessly with your details and file confidently. For premium options, get AI-generated or lawyer-reviewed versions tailored to your needs.

Important Note: While this ready-to-use legal template is designed for Indian courts, it's recommended to consult a qualified advocate for case-specific advice. Customize as per local court rules. Explore related formats like Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Restoration Application, or Ex Parte Decree Set Aside templates for comprehensive civil litigation support.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9, RULE 9, C. P. C.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9, RULE 9, C. P. C.

APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF SUIT WHERE SUIT WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF ONLY.

IN THE COURT OF THE....................

Application No..................... of 19....................

Under Order 9, Rule 9 C. P. C.

Suit No..................... of 19........................................

A. B................................................................... Plaintiff

versus

C. D............................................................... Defendant

Application for restoration of the suit dismissed in default on.................... 19....................

Sir,

The plaintiff most respectfully submits as under:

1. That the suit was fixed for.......... 19.......... for evidence/arguments............... It was called at 11 a. m. and the plaintiff went to call his counsel Shri.................... who was not available at his seat at that time, and the plaintiff informed the Court of this fact, and again went to call his counsel, whom he found in Court No..................... arguing another matter and he said to the plaintiff to ask the Court for time upto lunch hours. Accordingly the plaintiff requested the Court to wait till lunch hours. But, however, the learned Court dismissed the suit in default of the plaintiff.

2. That in the circumstances it is expedient that the suit be restored to its original number setting aside the ex-pane order aforesaid.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Honour may be pleased to set aside the ex-pane dismissal order and restore the suit in its original number, and dispute it of on merits after taking evidence and hearing the parties.

It is accordingly prayed.

Applicant

Through

Advocate

Place:....................

Dated:....................

Affidavit in support of the application to be filed.

CASE LAW

Order 9, Rule 9.

WHETHER AN ELECTION PETITION CAN BE RESTORED? ?(YES) ? WHO CAN FILE PETITION FOR RESTORATION OF AN ELECTION PETITION ? (THE PETITIONER HIMSELF AND NOT ANYBODY ELSE).

Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code (and not Rule 13) relied by the appellant, would be the relevant provision for restoration of an election petition. That can be invoked in an appropriate case by the election petitioner only and not by a respondent. By its own language, Rule 9 provides that where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit but he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside. Under this rule, therefore, an application for restoration can be made by the petitioner. Since it is a provision for restoration, it is logical that the provision should be applicable only when the party on account of whose default in appearance the petition was dismissed, makes an application to revive the petition to its former stage prior to its dismissal. In the instant case the election petitioner and not the respondent 19 who is in appeal before us, could have asked for the relief of restoration. The appellant contended that the statutory scheme authorises an elector at whose instance an election petition could have been filed to get substituted in the event of withdrawal or abatement and applying that analogy, he urged that a petition for restoration would also lies at the instance of a respondent. The ambit of the provisions relating to withdrawal and abatement cannot be extended to meet other situations. Specific provisions have been made in the Act to deal with the two situations of withdrawal and abatement and a person neither to not a party or one of the respondents who was entitled to file an election petition has been permitted to substitute himself in the election petition and to pursue the same in accordance with law. These provisions cannot be extended to an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code and at the instance of a respondent or any other elector a dismissed petition cannot be restored1.

BAR UNDER THE RULE AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

We are however not impressed by the argument that the ban imposed by Order 9, Rule 9 creates merely a personal bar or estoppel against the particular plaintiff suing on the same cause of action and leaves the matter at large for those claiming under him. Beyond the absence in Order 9, Rule 9 of the words referring "to those claiming under the plaintiff there is nothing to warrant this argument. It has neither principle, nor logic to commend it...................... The rule would obviously have no value and the bar imposed by it would be rendered meaningless if the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed for default had only to transfer the property to another and the latter was able to agitate rights which his vendor was precluded by law from putting forward.

In the instant case it was appellant who brought the previous suit which resulted in a decree for eviction of the tenant on July 31, 1961 a date when respondent 1 had already taken possession of the premises by virtue of the transfer made by the Official Liquidator. Thus the identity of the subject-matter being substantially the same, thus case clearly falls within the ambit of the ratio in the case supra. On this ground alone therefore the appellant is entitled to succeed because the High Court with due respect does not appeal to have construed the scope of Order 9, rule 9, C. P. C. properly2.

SCOPE OF THE RULE.

It is inherent in the constitution of the Court that it may own its mistake and rescind an illegal order which may not be having any sanction of law. The Court can do that as soon as it becomes obvious to it that it passed the order on an erroneous view of law when it was not conscious of the true scope of its own jurisdiction3.

An application under 0. 9, R. 9 in a proceeding in a Court of Civil jurisdiction, there is no reason why the procedure provided in regard to suits cannot be made applicable to a proceeding under this Rule. There is no justification to read any such restrictive words in Section 141. The expression "all proceedings" is of a very wide connotation and to restrict it to a proceeding which is original in nature and wholly independent of a suit will be doing violence to the language of the section4.

It is true that under O. 9, Rule 9, if the first suit has been dismissed either wholly or partly under Rule 8, the plaintiff would not be permitted for bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. He is however entitled to make an application for an order to set aside the dismissal in default of the first suit5.

SCOPE OF ENQUIRY UNDER THE RULE

The scope of enquiry in an application under this Rule is confined to questions regarding the service of summons and whether there was any sufficient cause preventing the appearance of the defendant, when the suit was called on for hearing6.

APPLICABILITY TO PAUPER APPLICATION.

The provisions of Order 9 apply to pauper applications by virtue of Section 141 and a pauper application dismissed for default of appearance of the petitioner can be restored under this Rule7.

CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR PASSING ORDER UNDER THIS RULE.

In case the Court makes a finding that sufficient cause has not been made out, then only the Court would be in a position to dismiss an application but until that finding is arrived at and if on the contrary there was sufficient cause for non-appearance, the Court would be bound to make an order setting aside the dismissal. In such circumstances there is no question of exercising any option or discretion in the matter8.

NON?APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE.

The Rule does not apply to applications for probate or letters of Administration9.

A judgment in probate proceedings operates as a judgment in rem unlike a judgment in an ordinary suit which operates inter-parties and hence it will not be appropriate to apply the provisions of this Order which are intended to apply to ordinary suits to applications for probate or letters of administration10.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MAJOR AND MINOR.

When a suit is dismissed for default whether the plaintiff is a major or minor, that dismissal can be set aside only on sufficient ground being shown".

When a suit is restored after it was dismissed on ground that neither plaintiff nor defendant has appeared on date fixed, defendant is entitled both in equity and has all right to notice of the date fixed for hearing of the case after its restoration12.

Once the court post the case for judgment, there can be no application to recall or advance the hearing for any purpose other than pronouncement of judgment13.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

The document writer cannot be treated as an attesting witness for the will to prove its execution14.

1. Dr. P. NallaThampy Thera v. B. L. Shankar and others. (1984) Supp. S. C. C. 631: A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 135.

2. M/s. Parasram Hanand Rao v. M/s. Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain and another, (1980) 2 S. C. C. 565: A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1655: 1980 U. J. (S. C. ) 719: 1980 Cr. L. J. (Civ.) 367.

3. Jaspal Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, A. I. R. 1972 Delhi 230.

4. Nathu Prasad v. Singhai Kapurchand, A. I. R. 1976 M. P. 136 (F. B. ) relied in Mahabir Prasad v. Des Raj, A. I. R. 1981 H. P. 58: 1981 Sim. L. C. 368.

5. Shiv Lal v. Pt. Ishar Das, 1972 Cur. L. J. 46: 74 Punj. L. R. 181.

6. Manmatha Nath Maity v. Smt. Provavati Roy, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 198.

7. Gulam Mohammad v. AH Mohammad, A. I. R. 1972 J&K 5.

8. Industrial Minerals & Mill Stores Traders v. K. M. Chemicals, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 215.

9. His Highness Shrimant Sadashivrao Raghunathrao Gandekar v. Srhimant Raj Kumar Anandrao Raghunathrao Gandekar, (1973) 75 Bom. L. R. 175.

10. Sadashiv Rao v. Anand Rao, A. I. R. 1973 Bom. 284: 75 Bom. L. R. 175.

11. Sarwan Ram v. Tehal Singh, 1973 Cur. L. J. 125.

12. Ram Kishore Saxena v. Smt. Raj Kumari. 1996 (2) C. C. C. 351 (All. ).

13. Smt. Sujatha v. Indian Bank, 1996 (2) C. C. C. 273 (Kant. ).

14. J. Venkataraman v. V. Mathi Booshanam, 1996 (3) C. C. C. 91 (Mad.).

0 PDF downloads

0 Word downloads

Download PDF₹99 Download Word₹99

Important Guidelines

Guidelines for Drafting Application under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC:

An Application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is utilized when a party seeks to set aside the dismissal of a suit for default. Follow these guidelines for effective drafting:

Clearly State the Purpose: Articulate the purpose of the application ? setting aside the dismissal order under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC due to default.

Provide Valid Grounds: Clearly state valid grounds justifying the non-appearance, such as sufficient cause for the default, unavoidable circumstances, or procedural irregularities.

Include Supporting Affidavit: Support the application with a sworn affidavit providing detailed and truthful reasons for the default. Attach any relevant documents that substantiate the grounds.

Reference Legal Provisions: Clearly cite Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC and any other applicable legal provisions or precedents supporting the application.

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

Vague or Ambiguous Grounds: Clearly define and articulate the grounds for setting aside the dismissal. Vague statements may lead to confusion or dismissal.

Inadequate Reasons for Non-Appearance: Ensure that the reasons provided for non-appearance are substantial and valid. Inadequate reasons may weaken the application.

Neglecting Supporting Affidavit: Support the application with a detailed and truthful affidavit. Neglecting this requirement may weaken the application's credibility.

Failure to Follow Court Requirements: Adhere to procedural requirements and timelines. Neglecting formalities may result in the rejection of the application.

By following these guidelines and avoiding common mistakes, you can draft a comprehensive Application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC, effectively seeking the setting aside of the dismissal order due to default in appearance.

Frequently asked questions

What is an Application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC?→

This is a legal application used in Indian civil courts to set aside an ex parte dismissal order of a suit due to the plaintiff's default in appearance, restoring the case upon showing sufficient cause under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Is this Application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC valid in all Indian courts?→

Yes, it is legally valid in all civil courts across India governed by the CPC, 1908, including District Courts and High Courts.

Do I need to pay stamp duty or court fee for this application?→

Yes, a nominal court fee is required as per the Court Fees Act applicable in your state in India. Stamp duty is usually not applicable; verify with local court rules.

In what format can I download this Application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC?→

Download this customizable legal template in editable Word or ready-to-use PDF format for immediate application in Indian courts.

Can I edit or customize this Order 9 Rule 9 CPC application?→

Absolutely, this agreement is fully customizable. Modify details like party names, case number, and sufficient cause to fit your specific legal requirements in India.

When and who should file an Application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC?→

Plaintiffs should file this promptly after suit dismissal for non-appearance, with valid reasons, to seek restoration in Indian civil proceedings.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9, RULE 9, C. P. C.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9, RULE 9, C. P. C.

APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF SUIT WHERE SUIT WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF ONLY.

IN THE COURT OF THE....................

Application No..................... of 19....................

Under Order 9, Rule 9 C. P. C.

Suit No..................... of 19........................................

A. B................................................................... Plaintiff

versus

C. D............................................................... Defendant

Application for restoration of the suit dismissed in default on.................... 19....................

Sir,

The plaintiff most respectfully submits as under:

2. That in the circumstances it is expedient that the suit be restored to its original number setting aside the ex-pane order aforesaid.

PRAYER

It is accordingly prayed.

Applicant

Through

Advocate

Place:....................

Dated:....................

Affidavit in support of the application to be filed.

CASE LAW

Order 9, Rule 9.

WHETHER AN ELECTION PETITION CAN BE RESTORED? ?(YES) ? WHO CAN FILE PETITION FOR RESTORATION OF AN ELECTION PETITION ? (THE PETITIONER HIMSELF AND NOT ANYBODY ELSE).

BAR UNDER THE RULE AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

SCOPE OF THE RULE.

SCOPE OF ENQUIRY UNDER THE RULE

APPLICABILITY TO PAUPER APPLICATION.

The provisions of Order 9 apply to pauper applications by virtue of Section 141 and a pauper application dismissed for default of appearance of the petitioner can be restored under this Rule7.

CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR PASSING ORDER UNDER THIS RULE.

NON?APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE.

The Rule does not apply to applications for probate or letters of Administration9.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MAJOR AND MINOR.

When a suit is dismissed for default whether the plaintiff is a major or minor, that dismissal can be set aside only on sufficient ground being shown".

Once the court post the case for judgment, there can be no application to recall or advance the hearing for any purpose other than pronouncement of judgment13.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

The document writer cannot be treated as an attesting witness for the will to prove its execution14.

1. Dr. P. NallaThampy Thera v. B. L. Shankar and others. (1984) Supp. S. C. C. 631: A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 135.

2. M/s. Parasram Hanand Rao v. M/s. Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain and another, (1980) 2 S. C. C. 565: A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1655: 1980 U. J. (S. C. ) 719: 1980 Cr. L. J. (Civ.) 367.

3. Jaspal Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, A. I. R. 1972 Delhi 230.

4. Nathu Prasad v. Singhai Kapurchand, A. I. R. 1976 M. P. 136 (F. B. ) relied in Mahabir Prasad v. Des Raj, A. I. R. 1981 H. P. 58: 1981 Sim. L. C. 368.

5. Shiv Lal v. Pt. Ishar Das, 1972 Cur. L. J. 46: 74 Punj. L. R. 181.

6. Manmatha Nath Maity v. Smt. Provavati Roy, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 198.

7. Gulam Mohammad v. AH Mohammad, A. I. R. 1972 J&K 5.

8. Industrial Minerals & Mill Stores Traders v. K. M. Chemicals, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 215.

9. His Highness Shrimant Sadashivrao Raghunathrao Gandekar v. Srhimant Raj Kumar Anandrao Raghunathrao Gandekar, (1973) 75 Bom. L. R. 175.

10. Sadashiv Rao v. Anand Rao, A. I. R. 1973 Bom. 284: 75 Bom. L. R. 175.

11. Sarwan Ram v. Tehal Singh, 1973 Cur. L. J. 125.

12. Ram Kishore Saxena v. Smt. Raj Kumari. 1996 (2) C. C. C. 351 (All. ).

13. Smt. Sujatha v. Indian Bank, 1996 (2) C. C. C. 273 (Kant. ).

14. J. Venkataraman v. V. Mathi Booshanam, 1996 (3) C. C. C. 91 (Mad.).

0 PDF downloads

0 Word downloads

Download PDF₹99 Download Word₹99