[2025:RJ-JP:3221] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7537/2015 Syed Maqsud Ahmad @ Wasim son of Shri Syed Murad Ahmad aged about 27 years, resident of Mohalla Shorgran, Khadim Mohalla, (Address in the plaint) Lakahn Kothari Daraji Mohalla Khawja Palace Dargah Sarif Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus Smt Salma Syeda Rafiq wife of Syeda Rafiq Husain aged about 66 years, resident of Mohalla Shorgran, Khadim Mohalla, Ajmer ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. P C Jain Mr. Roshan Vishwakarma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 22/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 18.04.2014 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajmer City (West) Ajmer whereby the said court proceeded exparte against the defendant and the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajmer City (West) Ajmer in civil suit No. 26/2014 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2014 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that due to unavoidable circumstances the defendant could not appear before [2025:RJ-JP:3221] (2 of 2) [CW-7537/2015] the trial Court on 14.04.2014. Resultantly, exparte proceedings were drawn against him. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC before the trial Court but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2015. He further submits that he could not appear before the trial Court on 18.04.2014 for the reason that summon was not served upon him. So, absence of the defendant before the trial Court on 18.04.2014 was bonafide. The trial Court had utterly failed to consider this aspect of matter, therefore the impugned orders be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned orders. As per the order dated 18.04.2014 passed by the trial Court, it is amply clear that the person who was present at the given address did not disclose his name, as a result of which, the notice was pasted. Copy of the summon bore the signature of the two witnesses. In this view of the matter, the trial Court deemed the service of summon upon defendant as sufficient. Despite service of notice, when none had appeared on behalf of the defendant before the trial Court, the trial Court proceeded ex parte against the defendant vide its order dated 18.04.2014. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court did not committed any error in proceeding ex parte against the defendant and in dismissing the application filed by him. Thus, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/150