1 2025:CGHC:33160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 694 of 2023  Devendra Kumar Sahu S/o- Basant Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o- Gandhi Mandir, Ward Bhatapara Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Basant Kumar Sahu S/o- Dukalu Kumar Aged About 60 Years Gandhi Mandir Ward Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Dropati W/o- Basant Kumar Aged About 52 Years R/o- Village- Mudhipar Ward Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Baloda-Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/defendant No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, whereby an application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was rejected, has been affirmed. 2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to lands bearing SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.18 19:00:21 +0530 2 survey Nos. 163/11, 163/16, 163/07, 163/01 situated at village Mudhipar, Patwari Circle No. 14, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar. 3. The petitioner and one more defendant appeared before the learned Court below and filed their written statement, and thereafter, they failed to appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The learned Trial Court passed the judgment and decree on 20.02.2020, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The plaintiff moved an application before the Tehsildar, and a revenue notice was served on the petitioner on 09.11.2022 for his appearance before the Tahsildar on 07.12.2022. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was moved by the defendants. 4. The learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the judgment and decree was passed on 20.02.2020, and the delay caused in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree has not been properly explained. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the learned Appellate Court, but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner came to know about the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court when he received the notice issued by the Tahsildar, Bhatapara, dated 09.11.2022. He would further submit that the delay was properly explained, and the learned Courts below have committed an error of law while rejecting the application. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would oppose. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC reads as under:- 3 “13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant. - In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit; Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: [Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim] [ Added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 72 (w.e.f.1.2.1977).]” 9. In this petition, the petitioner has not taken the ground that the summons was not duly served. Perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 8A/2015 dated 20.02.2020 would show that defendants No. 1 & 2 filed their written statement and admitted the plaint averments, and thereafter, the learned trial Court framed issues and the judgment and decree was passed. It appears that after filing the written statement, the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings of the Civil Suit; therefore, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed. 10. In this petition, the petitioner has neither annexed a copy of the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC nor the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner has raised a ground that after the service of notice dated 09.11.2022, the petitioner came to know about the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 4 11. It appears that the petitioner has not explained the reasons for his non- appearance before the learned trial Court and the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay was also not proper; thus, the learned trial Court rejected the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and the same has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Courts below. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant