1 2025:CGHC:41902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 458 of 2024 * - Om Prakash Sahu S/o Premsukh Aged About 35 Years Caste Sahu R/o Village Godhna, Present Address Tusma, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 Versus 1 - Ramsanehi S/o Ajabram Aged About 50 Years Caste Kashyap R/o Village Kuriyari, Tahsil Nawagarh, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh …..(Plaintiff) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent No.1/plaintiff for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by learned Civil Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.27 16:27:27 +0530 2 Judge, Class-II, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 01-B/2021. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned dated 22.04.2024 and learned Trial Court may kindly be directed to hear the matter after allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of The Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs against the defendant No.1/petitioner. He would contend that the civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 01-B/2021. He would further contend that a summons was issued to the defendants. The petitioner/defendant No.1 did not appear as the summons could not be served, and he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24.03.2022. He would further submit that the petitioner is a poor person and he had gone to Hyderabad for livelihood at the relevant time. He would also submit that after returning, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte order, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and it was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain the delay properly. He would argue that the learned trial Court adopted a rigid approach while rejecting the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that despite the service 3 of summons, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned trial Court. They would further contend that the petitioner has not explained the delay properly, and there was a delay of 300 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC; therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24.03.2022, as he could not appear despite the service of summons. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC along with an application for condonation of delay on 18.07.2023 as there was a delay of 300 days. The petitioner stated in the application for condonation of delay that he had gone to Hyderabad for livelihood, and after returning, he was informed with regard to the ex parte proceeding. 6. The learned trial Court rejected the application moved by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the documents with regard to his engagement under the contractor in Hyderabad. In this respect, the approach of the learned trial Court appears to be erroneous 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sangram Singh Versus Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425, held that “it is “procedure”, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against.” 4 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Sen Versus State of Bihar reported in 1975 (1) SCC 774 has held that “morality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge’s conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Versus Shamlal Murari reported in 1976 (1) SCC 719 held that “processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.” 10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sangram Singh (supra); Sushil Kumar Sen (supra) and Shamlal Murari (supra), the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 22.04.2024 is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the application moved under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties in light of the observations made herein above. 11. Consequently, the petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti