Madhya Pradesh High Court Delivers Scathing Rebuke: "Abdication of Judicial Duty" Unacceptable

In a significant and strongly worded judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a scathing indictment against a trial court judge, accusing them of a "classic instance of abdication of judicial duty." The High Court's Indore bench, comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Hirdesh, expressed profound disapproval of the judge's decision to summarily dismiss an application for default without delving into its substantive merits, emphasizing the fundamental duty of the judiciary to ensure justice is not merely dispensed but seen to be dispensed through due process.

The case originated from Anjad, in the Barwani district, where a trial court judge dismissed an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

This particular application sought the restoration of a civil suit that had previously been dismissed for default by the very same court. Instead of adjudicating the restoration plea on its inherent merits, the trial court chose to dismiss it again for default, a move that prompted the High Court's stern intervention.

The High Court unequivocally stated that the trial court had a clear and non-negotiable duty to decide the restoration application on its merits, regardless of any default in appearance by the applicant.

This principle, the bench highlighted, is not merely a procedural guideline but a foundational tenet of judicial conduct, designed to prevent arbitrary dismissals and ensure every litigant has a fair opportunity for their case to be heard.

Drawing on established legal precedent, the High Court cited a crucial Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bhagwan Das v.

M/s. Iqbal Jagdish Rai & Ors. The apex court's ruling, which the High Court reaffirmed, explicitly mandates that an application for restoration cannot be dismissed for default and must invariably be decided on its merits. This precedent serves as a vital safeguard against procedural technicalities overshadowing the pursuit of justice.

As a direct consequence of this judicial oversight, the High Court promptly set aside the trial court's erroneous order.

Furthermore, demonstrating its commitment to deterring such conduct, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the defaulting party, instructing that this amount be deposited with the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. This penalty underscores the seriousness with which procedural lapses, particularly those leading to the abrogation of judicial responsibility, are viewed.

In its directive, the High Court ordered the trial court to reinstate the original application for restoration and proceed to decide it strictly on its merits within a strict timeframe of two months from the date of the High Court's order.

To ensure awareness and accountability across the judicial hierarchy, copies of this significant order have been dispatched to the Registrar General and the Principal District Judge of Barwani, serving as a clear reminder of the exacting standards expected from judicial officers.

This ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court is more than just a reversal of a lower court's decision; it is a powerful reaffirmation of fundamental judicial principles.

It sends an unequivocal message that procedural adherence is paramount, and the "abdication of judicial duty," particularly when it denies litigants a hearing on merits, will not be tolerated. It reinforces the critical role of higher courts in overseeing the proper functioning of the justice system and upholding the integrity of judicial processes.