-1- 2025:CGHC:20887 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 435 of 2025 1 - Balaram Sahu S/o Paras Ram Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village And Post - Jhara, Police Station - Khallari, Dist - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Sonsay Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Changorabhata, Shriram Nagar, Dist - Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o Present H. No. 750, B Block, Sonari, Near Nurse Quarter, Sonari, Jamshedpur, Dist - Puvisinghbhum Jharkhand 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasamund, Dist - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivbhan Singh Banjare, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav sharma, P. L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.05.2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned II nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 30A/2023, whereby an application moved by Defendant No.1 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) was allowed. 2) Brief Facts of the Case are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 05.04.2022 is null and void along Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. A summons was issued to the Defendants. As per the records, despite service of summons, Defendant No.1 did not appear on 22.08.2023. Thereafter, a fresh summons was issued through both ordinary and registered modes. Upon service, Defendant No.1 again failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte on 12.09.2023. On 01.01.2025, Defendant No.1 moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 12.09.2023. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 25.03.2025. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Defendant No.1 was duly served with the notice but remained absent deliberately and hence, was rightly proceeded ex parte. It is also contended that vide order dated 12.09.2023, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte and an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was moved at a belated stage without sufficient cause and particularly at a stage when the matter was posted for final hearing but the learned trial court allowed the application, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside. 4) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 would support the order passed by the learned trial Court. He would submit that Defendant No.1 is a necessary party and his presence is essential for the proper adjudication of the case; thus, the learned trial Court rightly exercised its discretion and allowed the application. 5) Heard. -3- 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 425, held that the Code of Civil Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. The rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. Even if a party has been proceeded ex parte, the Court can permit him to join proceedings at a later stage if ends of justice demand it. 7) Admittedly, Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte on 12.09.2023. However, before the suit was finally adjudicated, he moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC on 01.01.2025 for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned trial Court observed that Defendant No.1 is a necessary party and he has marked his appearance; thus, the learned trial Court allowed the application. 8) This discretion exercised by the learned trial Court is within the four corners of the law. No perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice is found in the reasoning or the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. Further, no substantial prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. 9) Considering the facts, submissions, and judicial precedents cited above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court rightly exercised its discretion under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim