1 2025:CGHC:45569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 52 of 2022 1. Dayaram S/o Moolchand Satnami, Aged About 60 Years All R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Gangaram, S/o Dayaram Satnami, Aged About 35 Years All R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3. Ashok S/o Dayaram Satfnami, Aged About 25 Years All R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4. Lachhi, S/o Dayaram Satnami, Aged About 23 Years All R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5. Bhugchand, S/o Dayaram Satnami, Aged About 21 Years All R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 6. Konda (Also Known As And Signs As Roopchand) S/o Dayaram Satnami, Aged About 19 Years All R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Guddulal S/o Baburam Satnami, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lachhanpur, Out-Post-Karahi, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. MPS Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08. 09.2025 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.09 14:40:47 +0530 2 1. The petitioners/defendants have challenged the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional Judge to the Civil Judge Class – II, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession before the learned trial Court. He would further submit that the summons were served on petitioners and they were required to appear before the learned trial Court on 21.11.2019 and they appeared on said date. He would also submit that case was fixed for hearing on 21.01.2020. On account of death of grandmother of the petitioners, they could not appear and they were proceeded ex-parte by the learned trial Court. He would contend that application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was moved along with a copy of death certificate of their grandmother, but the learned trial Court rejected it vide order dated 07.10.2021 without assigning sufficient reasons. He would pray to set-aside the order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Pali would submit that the petitioners failed to plead the fact of death of their grandmother in the affidavit, and therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the said application. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It appears that after service of summons, the petitioners appeared before the learned trial Court on 21.11.2019. On the next date i.e. 21.01.2020, the petitioners could not appeared on account of death of their grandmother, who died on 10.01.2020 and they were proceeded ex-parte on the said date. The petitioners moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC 3 for setting-aside ex-parte proceeding and it was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the petitioners failed to mention reason of their non-appearance before the learned trial Court in their affidavit. 6. Considering the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court in the order impugned and further the reasons assigned by the petitioners in application moved under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, I am inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the order dated 07.10.2021 is hereby set-aside and application moved under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is hereby allowed. The petitioner would be at liberty to file written statement, and thereafter, the learned trial Court shall frame fresh issues. 7. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant