( 2025:HHC:46013 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. CMPMO No.749 of 2025 Decided on: 30.12.2025 _______________________________________________ M/s Stove Kraft Ltd …..Petitioner Versus M/s Jay Gee Ayurvedic and others …...Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral): The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, passed by the learned District Jude, Solan, HP, whereby the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC by the present petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. Present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. Being proceeded ex parte means that the party has been proceeded ex parte for the day and not from the entire proceedings. If, however, a party wants to be relegated to the position, on which, the said party had been proceeded against exparte, it is in that event, that an application for setting aside the ex parte would be required to be made. In this respect, reference can be made in AIR 1955 S.C. 425 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 . ( 2025:HHC:46013 ) titled as Sangram Singh appellant vs Election Tribunal Kotah and another Civil Appeal No.214 of 1954. 4. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 5. Moreover in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re- weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 6. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of above terms, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge December 30, 2025 (meera)