[2025:RJ-JP:2554] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9038/2023 1. Asia Pacific Society For Training And Development, (Registration No.334/jpr/2004-05 Dated 06.08.2004), Registered Office D-187, Bhrigu Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur Through President Kailash Shankar Gautam S/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Gautam, Aged About 58 Years, Presently Residing At House No. B-1305, Cedar Luxuria, Muhana Mandi Road, Mansarovar Extension, Jaipur. 2. Sheela Sharma D/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Gautam, Aged About 64 Years, Presently Residing At House No. B- 1305, Cedar Luxuria, Muhana Mandi Road, Mansarovar Extension, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. M/s Krishna Balram Dream Home Private Limited, Registered Office At 427, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur Through Director. 2. Smt. Bhagwati Devi Agarwal W/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Resident Of 38, Uniyara Garden, Near Petrol Pump, Trimurti Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. Nitesh Agarwal S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Resident Of 38, Uniyara Garden, Near Petrol Pump, Trimurti Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma Mr. M.C. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma Mr. Deepak Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 20 /01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:2554] (2 of 4) [CW-9038/2023] 17.05.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro-II in civil suit No. 41/2022 whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 26.06.2020 and permanent injunction in which after service of notice, defendants had not appeared before the trial Court and the trial Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 proceeded ex-parte against the defendants. On 06.04.2023, the trial court recorded the statement of the plaintiffs and posted the matter for final arguments on 18.04.2023. On 18.04.2023, counsel for the defendants appeared before the trial court and the matter was heard finally and the matter was posted for pronouncement of judgment on 01.05.2023. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter defendants filed an application before the trial Court for setting aside the ex- parte proceedings against the defendants. Plaintiffs filed reply to the said application but the trial Court vide order dated 17.05.2023 allowed the application filed by the defendants and took the written statement on record although with cost. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against the defendants. When the matter was heard finally then the trial court had to pronounce the judgment and not to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. So, the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:2554] (3 of 4) [CW-9038/2023] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1) Guddu Vs. District Judge, reported in 2014 ARC 1 405 2) Arti Sukhdev Kashyap Vs. Daya Kishore Arora, reported in 1993 RRR 1 232 3) Surender Kaur vs. Shri Jagtender, in civil misc. Petition main (Original) No. 263 of 2022 decided on 9.09.2022. 4) Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kmmar and ors., reported in 1964 ALT SC 2 341. Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the defendants had filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings when they came to know about the ex-parte proceedings. The Judge who heard the arguments had already been transferred, so no proceedings took place. Therefore, the trial Court set aside the ex-parte proceedings and rightly passed the impugned order. The order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants have placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of ‘Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. Praveen Chand Chowardia and anr.’ in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1977/07, decided on 06.08.2008. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that after service of notice, defendants had not appeared before the trial Court and the trial Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 proceeded ex-parte against [2025:RJ-JP:2554] (4 of 4) [CW-9038/2023] them. The trial Court had recorded the statement of plaintiffs on 06.04.2023 and posted the matter for final arguments on 18.04.2023. On 18.04.2023, counsel for the defendants was present and he did not file any application for setting aside the ex- parte proceedings. The trial Court heard the final arguments of both the sides and posted the matter for pronouncement of judgment. So, in my considered opinion, when the matter was posted for pronouncement of judgment, then trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and rather the trial Court had to pass the final judgment. So, the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Petition filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. The order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass the final judgment without taking into consideration the written statement filed by the defendants. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/245