2025:HHC:9527 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.483/2019. Date of Decision: 07th April, 2025. Kapil .....Petitioner Versus Kala Devi & Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC bearing No.598 of 2019 for setting aside ex parte order dated 19.08.2014 on behalf of the petitioner/defendant has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 3. In the case at hand, the defendant had been proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.08.2014. The petitioner/defendant as per record was duly served on 19.08.2014. Despite the knowledge of the date of hearing, he did not appear and hence was proceeded against ex parte. The application, in the case at hand, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.08.2014 was filed on 18.09.2019. 4. If the petitioner/defendant does not appear after being duly served, then the consequences thereof have been lucidly 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:9527 explained by the Apex Court in AIR 1955 SC 425, titled Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah & Anr. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- “33. We have seen that if the defendant does not appear at the first hearing, the Court can proceed exparte, which means that it can proceed without a written statement; and Order IX, rule 7 makes it clear that unless good cause is shown the defendant cannot be relegated to the position that he would have occupied if he had appeared. That means that he cannot put in a written statement unless he is allowed to do so, and if the case is one in which the Court considers a written statement should have been put in, the consequences entailed by Order VIII, rule 10 must be suffered.” 5. From the aforesaid, it is evident that in the case at hand, the petitioner sought relegation to the position, he would have occupied had he put in appearance on 19.08.2014. The same can only be done in case good cause is shown by the petitioner/defendant for his non-appearance on the said date. 6. The application, in the case at hand, for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2014 has admittedly been filed on 18.09.2019, as has been rightly pointed out by the trial Court. No application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the present application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC beyond the period of limitation. Even otherwise in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 1955 SC 425 (supra), the present petitioner is not precluded to join the proceedings from 3 2025:HHC:9527 the stage it had reached, subject to such terms and conditions, as the trial Court might think fit to be imposed. 7. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.04.2025 and the records be sent forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 07th April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)