1 2025:CGHC:31829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 636 of 2025  Krishnacharan Patel S/o Puroshottam Patel Aged About 45 Years Vill - Sadak Para Vill Kumhari Ps Gidhouri The Tundra Dist- Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Richa Patel W/o Krishnacharan Patel Aged About 37 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Hricha Patel) R/o Vill Ambe Complex Bus Stand Gidhouri Dist- Balodabazar (C.G.) (Defendants) 2. Minor Sanskriti Patel D/o Through Mother Richa Patel R/o Vill Ambe Complex Bus Stand Gidhouri Dist- Balodabazar (C.G.) (Defendants) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside or quashing the impugned order dated 19/06/2025 passed by the family court Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in civil case Guardian and Wardship act 06/2024. (Annexure P-1) 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.11 14:43:00 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was moved by respondent No. 1 as she was proceeded ex-party and the said application was allowed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar Bhatapara. She would further submit that again she committed default and was proceeded ex-party and the learned Family Court again allowed the application moved by respondent No. 1 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, though no affidavit was filed in support of that application and sufficient reasons were not assigned. She would pray to set-aside the order dated 19.06.2025. 3. I have heard Ms. Mishra, and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. Perusal of the order would show that respondent No. 1 was out of station on the date of hearing i.e. 07.05.2025; therefore, she was proceeded ex- party. The learned trial Court after due satisfaction, set-aside the ex-parte order passed against respondent No. 1, while exercising its discretion; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 19.06.2025. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the learned Family Court is directed to expedite the proceedings as the matter has been pending since 2024. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant