HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4988 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Vasu Lavania learned counsel for the petitioner. Apparently, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner in person. The Court on 25.08.2025 had inquired from the petitioner in person whether he would like to avail some legal representation to which he agreed and it is in that context, Sri Lavania has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Today learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner in person both have been heard. The petition has been preferred with the limited prayer of assailing the order dated 01.05.2025 whereby the Additional Principal Judge, Court no.8, Lucknow while allowing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by the petitioner had also imposed a cost of Rs.3000/-. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved against the imposition of cost not so much regarding the order dated 01.05.2025 whereby his application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Lavania has urged that even though the Court had allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, but it did not have a jurisdiction impose cost of Rs.3000/- relatable to the conduct of the petitioner, which could have only been taken note by the Court while imposing cost in terms of Section 35-B CPC. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person, Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Lakshay Kumar Malhotra .....Petitioner(s) Shruti Tandon And Anr. .....Respondent(s) It is also sought to be argued that the petitioner had already filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and once the said application was pending, it was not open for the trial court to have proceeded exparte, it ought to have decided the said application and since the same has not been done, therefore, setting the proceedings exparte against the petitioner, in itself is bad. Once the initial order is bad, the subsequent order dated 01.05.2025 is also rendered bad. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that the crux of the submission does not impress this Court as in terms of Order 9, in case, if the defendant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, the Court has ample jurisdiction to proceed exparte. Once proceedings were set exparte, it was open for the petitioner to have taken recourse to Order 9 itself which provides a complete mechanism including by moving an application in terms of Rule 7 of Order 9 for recalling of the said order which was availed by the petitioner. For the purposes of clarity, Order 9 Rule 7 CPC has been reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: "7. Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance.—Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit, ex parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance." In terms of the Rule 7, the Court has ample power to put the petitioner to cost or otherwise and by fixing or imposing cost of Rs.3000/- while allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC does not appear to be either arbitrary or an order passed without jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that the trial court committed any error in passing the said order including the imposition of cost. Moreover, the petitioner in his writ petition has already referred to the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswami & Sons and Ors; (2009) 10 SCC 84, however, from a perusal of the same, it would reveal that the Court was considering an issue relating to the law regarding amendment in pleadings A227 No. 4988 of 2025 2 but what is important is the fact that the Apex Court has also taken note of the manner in which the cost have to be imposed and that too realistic. This aspect was subsequently taken note of by the Apex Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Anothers; (2010) 8 SCC 1. For the aforesaid reasons as well as noticing the dictum of the Apex Court as noticed above, this Court does not deem appropriate to entertain this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. October 6, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 4988 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench