-1- 2025:CGHC:43939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 979 of 2019 1 - Balram S/o Late Faguwa Uraon Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bilamha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur/ Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 02), 2 - Ramlakhan S/o Bisun Gond Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bilamha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur/ Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 03) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bichkolhin W/o Chetandas Aged About 43 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Kanthi, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff), 2 - Buwa S/o Bajrang Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bilamha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur/ Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 01), 3 - Bauwa Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bilamha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur/ Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 04), 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surguja, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate along with Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.08.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 1) The petitioners have challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby the learned appellate Court maintained the order dated 31.08.2016 passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 01/2013, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.08.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 01-A/2002 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class- I, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 2) Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had instituted a suit for a declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners/defendants failed to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, by order dated 02.01.2003, the trial Court proceeded ex parte and thereafter, by judgment dated 22.08.2003, the suit was decreed. The record would show that no effective steps were taken by the petitioners before the trial Court. It is also reflected from the record that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 remained silent for about nine years and thereafter, on 11.09.2012, moved an application before the Tahsildar, Dhouarpur, for correction of revenue records, whereupon a notice was issued to the petitioners and they filed a reply on 03.05.2013 (Annexure P-7). Only thereafter, the petitioners moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.08.2003. The trial Court vide order dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P-8), rejected the said application, holding that the petitioners deliberately avoided the proceedings. The appellate Court, by the impugned order, affirmed the findings of the trial Court. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the matter traveled up to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the earlier round of litigation, and by order dated 14.08.2000, the matter was remitted back to the concerned Civil Court for -3- fresh adjudication. The case was then fixed for hearing on 02.01.2002. It is contended that on the said date, a counsel, though never engaged by the petitioners and without a vakalatnama, appeared and sought time to file the written statement. The petitioners were thus prejudiced, and ultimately, the suit came to be decreed ex parte on 22.08.2003. Learned counsel would urge that the petitioners had explained sufficient cause for their non-appearance, as well as the delay properly, but both Courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders. 4) Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposes the petition. He would submit that once the High Court of Madhya Pradesh remitted the matter on 14.08.2000, the petitioners were under an obligation to remain vigilant to appear before the trial Court. The petitioners, despite knowledge, did not inquire about the status of the civil suit for eight long years, and only after the receipt of a notice in the revenue proceedings, moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The delay being inordinate and unexplained, the trial Court rightly rejected the application, which has rightly been affirmed in the appeal. 5) Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer, would support the order passed by the learned appellate Court. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7) A perusal of the record would show that initially, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed against the petitioners on 13.11.1998, against which an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed, but it was rejected. That order traveled up to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and vide order dated -4- 14.08.2000, the matter was remitted back to the Civil Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing on 02.01.2001. According to the petitioners, one Advocate appeared on their behalf, though he was never authorized by them. Be that as it may, the petitioners admittedly did not take any steps to pursue the matter for eight long years and ultimately approached the Trial Court in the year 2013. 8) In the present case, despite knowledge of the pendency of the civil suit, the petitioners did not appear before the trial Court and remained silent for a long 8 years. Their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was barred by delay and no sufficient cause was shown; therefore, the said application was rejected. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any error of law in rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal, respectively. 9) Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim