CR-1119- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 126 ASHWANI MAHAJAN MADAN LAL CHOPRA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. for modification of order dated not been granted permission to file written statement. 2. respondent defendants personal necessity. Counsel asserts that the petitioner proceeded against became aware filed, which has been accepted -2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of decision: ASHWANI MAHAJAN VS. MADAN LAL CHOPRA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Instant petition has been filed for modification of order dated 24.12.2024, Annexure P not been granted permission to file written statement. Counsel for the petitioner respondent No.1/landlord filed a petition, Annexure P defendants from a shop on the ground of arrears of rent as also on account of personal necessity. Counsel asserts that the petitioner proceeded against ex parte on 20.02.2024 and in November, 2024, when he became aware of ex parte proceedings, a filed, which has been accepted vide order IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1119-2025 Date of decision:04.03.2025 ...PETITIONER MADAN LAL CHOPRA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate filed by the petitioner/first defendant 24.12.2024, Annexure P-4, whereby he has not been granted permission to file written statement. petitioner/ first defendant states that the , Annexure P-1, for eviction of the from a shop on the ground of arrears of rent as also on account of personal necessity. Counsel asserts that the petitioner never served and was on 20.02.2024 and in November, 2024, when he proceedings, an application, Annexure P-2, was vide order dated 24.12.2024, Annexure P PETITIONER defendant 4, whereby he has states that the for eviction of the from a shop on the ground of arrears of rent as also on account of was on 20.02.2024 and in November, 2024, when he 2, was dated 24.12.2024, Annexure P-4. Sheetal 2025.03.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1119- Counsel submits that petitioner has been written statement has not been granted. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Technical that the Rent Controller CPC. 3. submission 4. Vijay Kumar Madan’s paragraphs No.1/landlord as it will lead to delay in the proceedings 5. observed as under: -2025 -2- Counsel submits that although ex parte proceedings petitioner has been allowed to join the proceedings, but permission written statement has not been granted. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Madan Technical Education Society and others that the Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the scope of Order 9 Rule 7 I have heard counsel for the submission besides examining the document As the legal position has been settled by the Supreme Court in Kumar Madan’s case (supra), which will be paragraphs, this Court does not deem it necessary landlord as it will lead to delay in the proceedings In Vijay Kumar Madan’s observed as under:- “6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be maintained but subject to certain modifications. Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC the Court does have juri ex-parte order to impose costs and also to put the defendants-applicants on terms. Rule 7 of Order 9 of the CPC reads as under: "7. Procedure where defendant appear on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good ca previous non-appearance proceedings have been set aside and to join the proceedings, but permission to file the written statement has not been granted. Placing reliance upon the judgment Vijay Kumar Madan and others Vs. R.N. Gupta Education Society and others (2002) 5 SCC 30, counsel urges iled to appreciate the scope of Order 9 Rule 7 d counsel for the petitioner and considered besides examining the documents placed on the record. s the legal position has been settled by the Supreme Court in which will be clear from the following this Court does not deem it necessary to call upon respondent landlord as it will lead to delay in the proceedings. case (supra), Supreme Court Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be maintained but subject to certain modifications. Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC the Court does have jurisdiction, while setting aside the parte order to impose costs and also to put the applicants on terms. Rule 7 of Order 9 of the Procedure where defendant appear on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause appearance - Where the court has have been set aside and to file the written statement has not been granted. Placing reliance upon the judgment and others Vs. R.N. Gupta , counsel urges iled to appreciate the scope of Order 9 Rule 7, considered his s the legal position has been settled by the Supreme Court in the following to call upon respondent , Supreme Court has Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be maintained but subject to certain modifications. Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC the sdiction, while setting aside the parte order to impose costs and also to put the applicants on terms. Rule 7 of Order 9 of the Procedure where defendant appear on day use for ourt has Sheetal 2025.03.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1119- -2025 -3- adjourned the hearing of the suit ex defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non appearance, he may, upon such terms as the directs as to c answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance." 7. Power in the Court to impose costs and to put the defendant-applicant on terms is spelled out from the expression "upon such terms as the costs or otherwise". It is settled with the decision of this Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohinder Kumar 993) that on an adjourned hearing, in spite of the Court having proceeded ex entitled to appear and participate in the subsequent proceedings as of right. An application under Rule 7 is required to be made only if the defendant wishes the proceedings to be proceedings from the date wherefrom they became ex parte so as to convert the ex While exercising power of putting the defendant on terms under Rule 7 the Court cannot pass an order which would have the effect of placing the defendant in a situation more worse off than what he would have he had not applied under Rule 7. So also the conditions for taking benefit of the order should not be such as would have the effect of decreeing the suit itself. Similarly, the court may not in the garb of exercising power of placing upon terms ma probably the Court may not have made in the suit itself. As pointed out in the case of Arjun Singh Rule 7 in its essence is to ensure the orderly conduct of rned 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." Power in the Court to impose costs and to put the applicant on terms is spelled out from the pon such terms as the court directs as to costs or otherwise". It is settled with the decision of this Arjun Singh v. Mohinder Kumar (AIR 1964 SC that on an adjourned hearing, in spite of the Court having proceeded ex-parte earlier the defendant is ar and participate in the subsequent proceedings as of right. An application under Rule 7 is required to be made only if the defendant wishes the proceedings to be reflected back and reopen the proceedings from the date wherefrom they became ex to convert the ex parte hearings into bi-parte. While exercising power of putting the defendant on terms under Rule 7 the Court cannot pass an order which would have the effect of placing the defendant in a situation more worse off than what he would have been if he had not applied under Rule 7. So also the conditions for taking benefit of the order should not be such as would have the effect of decreeing the suit itself. ourt may not in the garb of exercising power of placing upon terms make an order which probably the Court may not have made in the suit itself. out in the case of Arjun Singh the purpose of Rule 7 in its essence is to ensure the orderly conduct of and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non- ourt osts or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day Power in the Court to impose costs and to put the applicant on terms is spelled out from the ourt directs as to costs or otherwise". It is settled with the decision of this (AIR 1964 SC that on an adjourned hearing, in spite of the Court parte earlier the defendant is ar and participate in the subsequent proceedings as of right. An application under Rule 7 is required to be made only if the defendant wishes the back and reopen the proceedings from the date wherefrom they became ex parte. While exercising power of putting the defendant on terms under Rule 7 the Court cannot pass an order which would have the effect of placing the defendant in a been if he had not applied under Rule 7. So also the conditions for taking benefit of the order should not be such as would have the effect of decreeing the suit itself. ourt may not in the garb of exercising ke an order which probably the Court may not have made in the suit itself. the purpose of Rule 7 in its essence is to ensure the orderly conduct of Sheetal 2025.03.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1119- 6. application open the proceedings words, the prior to the date of passing of impose such facts and circumstances of each case. 7. Annexure P on an application who is the brother of permission to file the written statement. filed the application, Annexure P did not grant permission to file the written statement was granted to join the proceedings from observing that no good cause has been denied the permission to file defence of the petitioner/ This Court is, therefore, of the view that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 8. position as it existed prior to 20.02.2024. He is granted permission to written statement on or before 15.04.2025 -2025 -4- the proceedings by penalizing improper dilatoriness calculated merely to prolong the litigation. It has been held by the Supreme Court application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is to relegate the party back and re open the proceedings from the date when he became the defaulting party has to be put in the same position as he/she prior to the date of passing of the ex parte such condition or cost as it deems appropriate keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. It is evident from a perusal of order dated 24.12.2024 Annexure P-4, that both the defendants were on an application filed, ex parte proceedings against is the brother of the first defendant, permission to file the written statement. application, Annexure P-2, Court did not grant permission to file the written statement was granted to join the proceedings from observing that no good cause has been denied the permission to file his response of the petitioner/first defendant is likely to be seriously prejudiced. This Court is, therefore, of the view that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India For the aforegoing reasons, position as it existed prior to 20.02.2024. He is granted permission to written statement on or before 15.04.2025 the proceedings by penalizing improper dilatoriness ely to prolong the litigation.” by the Supreme Court that the purpose of under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is to relegate the party back and re from the date when he became ex parte. In other has to be put in the same position as he/she was ex parte order. In doing so, Court may as it deems appropriate keeping in view the It is evident from a perusal of order dated 24.12.2024 were proceeded against ex parte and proceedings against the second defendant were set aside and he was granted However, when the first defendant , Court set aside the ex parte order, but did not grant permission to file the written statement though the permission was granted to join the proceedings from ongoing stage. By merely observing that no good cause has been shown, the petitioner cannot be response. In the absence of the reply, the defendant is likely to be seriously prejudiced. This Court is, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. petitioner is relegated back to the position as it existed prior to 20.02.2024. He is granted permission to file a written statement on or before 15.04.2025, subject to deposit of cost the proceedings by penalizing improper dilatoriness the purpose of an under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is to relegate the party back and re- . In other was may as it deems appropriate keeping in view the It is evident from a perusal of order dated 24.12.2024, and second defendant, he was granted defendant order, but permission stage. By merely the petitioner cannot be , the defendant is likely to be seriously prejudiced. this is a fit case for interference petitioner is relegated back to the file a to deposit of cost of Sheetal 2025.03.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1119- Rs.10,000/ Association State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chand deposit of cost would be a pre the written statement. 9. 04.03.2025 sheetal -2025 -5- 10,000/- with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfar Association, Account No.37167209613, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chand deposit of cost would be a pre-condition to the the written statement. Impugned order is modified accordingly. Petition is disposed off. .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfar 37167209613, IFSC Code:-SBIN0050306 with State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh. It is clarified that condition to the grant of opportunity to file order is modified accordingly. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare with that the grant of opportunity to file Sheetal 2025.03.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh