(2025:JHHC:35547) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 777 of 2025 ------ Jagdish Ram Gupta, aged about 84 years, son of late Chintaman Ram Gupta, Resident of Village – Ishri Bazar, PO – Ishri Bazar, PS – Nimiaghat, District – Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Shiv Shankar Pd. Swarnkar, son of Ram Avtar Swarnkar, Resident of Village - Ishri Bazar, PO & PS – Dumri, at present PS – Nimiaghat, District – Giridih. .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate Order No. 07/ Dated : - 26th November 2025 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff and is aggrieved by the impugned order passed under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC by which the ex-parte proceeding drawn against the defendant has been withdrawn at a cost of Rs 1000/-. 2. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the defendant in order to deliberately delay the trial, did not appear, although he was on litigating term and the defendant was pursuing Civil Appeal No. 42/2019 in the same civil court. However, in this suit, he did not appear and consequently, ex-parte proceeding was drawn against him. It is also contended that even the written statement has not been filed within the stipulated time and all these are intended to delay the disposal of the suit. 3. Having perused the impugned order, it appears that the ex-parte proceeding was drawn on 30.01.2025, whereas the impugned order has been passed on 20.05.2025 on paying a cost of Rs.1000/- Learned counsel has relied on 1996 SCC OnLine AP 113 (Manduva Srinivasa Rao Vs. Sajana Granites, Madras & Ors.). 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has defended the impugned order. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it appears that, trial is at its inception and no serious prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff by recalling the ex-parte proceeding against the defendant. 6. It is not disputed that both the parties are on litigating term. It is also not disputed that the above appeal was pending between both sides in the (2025:JHHC:35547) 2 same Civil Court. In this view of the matter, for the substantial ends of justice, the impugned order is sustained with modification of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs.1000/- as ordered by the trial Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. This civil misc. petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Aditi