JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2023 by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad whereby a petition filed for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been rejected by the learned court. The further prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 13.09.2022 whereby the Original Suit No.07 of 2021 has been dismissed for non-prosecution and the prayer is also made for restoration of Probate Suit No.07 of 2021 to its original file. 3. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that Original Suit No.07 of 2021 was at the initial stage and even notices have not been issued in that case. He submits that the said suit was dismissed for default as the court-fee was not filed within granted time. He submits that thereafter a petition for restoration of the said suit under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed which has been rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad by order dated 16.01.2023 on the ground that the limitation has not been explained properly. He submits that this matter was earlier posted before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and he relied in the case of Anwari Begum and Others v. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Others reported in 2011 (1) JLJR 304 wherein it was held that if the suit is not admitted and it was dismissed for default at the initial stage, there is no need of issuing notice upon the other side. He submits that by order dated 03.08.2023 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has referred this aspect of the matter before the Division Bench which was placed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by order dated 27.11.2024 answered the Reference saying that if the suit is not admitted and initially it has been dismissed for non-prosecution, there is no need of issuing notice upon the other side. He submits that in view of that, after the answer by the Division Bench, this matter has been listed before this Bench. He further submits that the learned court has not considered about the Covid-19 pandemic and the suit was dismissed for default by order dated 13.9.2022. He further submits that the petitioners are the daughters of the executor namely Qutubuddin Ansari and they could not appear on the fixed date for submitting the court-fee as they are married daughters. He submits that the petitioner no.1 was admitted in National Highways Nursing Home from 03.05.2022 to 20.07.2022 and as such she could not appear on 06.05.2022, 09.06.2022 and on 08.07.2022. The petitioner was again admitted in Nichitpur Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. From 31.07.2022 to 04.08.2022 and in view of that the petitioner could not appear before the learned court on 23.08.2022 and on 13.09.2022 and the suit was dismissed for default. He then submits that along with the petition filed before the learned court, the medical certificate was also annexed. However, the learned court has been pleased to not accept the same. 4. It is an admitted position that the said suit was dismissed for default on the ground that within the time granted, the court-fee was not deposited and thereafter this petition under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed. The said petition is annexed as Annexure-2 in the C.M.P. The said petition was also accompanied with the condonation petition of delay. The certificate of National Highways Nursing Home and Nichitpur Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd were also annexed therein which clearly suggest that the petitioner no.1 was having some ailment. For some of the period, prior to 13.09.2022, the Covid-19 pandemic was also existing. The certificate of National Highways Nursing Home and Nichitpur Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd were also annexed therein which clearly suggest that the petitioner no.1 was having some ailment. For some of the period, prior to 13.09.2022, the Covid-19 pandemic was also existing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the suo- motu case has extended the period of limitation arising out of any statutory provision of any Act. 5. The Court finds that sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay and the learned court has wrongly not accepted the same. The provision of C.P.C is made for doing justice as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chinnammal v. P. Arumugham reported in (1990) 1 SCC 513 and in paragraph no.17 of the said judgment, it has been held as under: “17. It is well to remember that the Code of Civil Procedure is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible. It is in our opinion, not unreasonable to demand restitution from a person who ha purchased the property in court auction being aware of the pending appeal against the decree.” 6. Admittedly, the suit was not admitted as yet and even the notices have not been issued. In view of that, a Reference was answered by Division Bench, there is no need of issuing notice upon the other side. 7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2023 is set-aside. The petition filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are, hereby, allowed. 8. The Original Suit No.07 of 2021 is restored to its original file. 9. The petitioners will appear before the learned court on 17.03.2025 and the learned court will proceed further in accordance with law. 10. C.M.P. No.713 of 2023 is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.