[2025:RJ-JP:45292] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17202/2025 1. Kanaram S/o Chhajuram, R/o Anantpura Police Station Govindgadh Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur (Deceased) Through Legal Representative 1/1. Seeta Devi, W/o Late Kanaram 1/2. Lokesh, S/o Late Kanaram 1/3. Mamta, D/o Late Kanaram 1/4. Vikas @ Vikki, S/o Late Kanaram 1/5. Meenu D/o Late Kanaram, All R/o Anatpura Police Station Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus Murarilal S/o Shri Hemchand, aged about 50 Years, R/o Chaaranvaas, Tehsil-Chomu, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 11/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Civil Suit No.10/2017 titled as 'Murarilal Vs. Ravindra Kumar and ors.', whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken due steps to contest the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. However, due to miscommunication between the lawyer and the petitioner, the petitioner could not appear in the suit, and the lawyer also remained absent on 25.08.2025, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn up against him. He further submits that immediately upon gaining knowledge about [2025:RJ-JP:45292] (2 of 3) [CW-17202/2025] the ex-parte proceedings; petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 30.10.2025. 3. He also submits that since the main suit pertains to specific performance of the agreement, the petitioner may kindly be accorded an opportunity to contest the main suit and further submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order by taking a hyper-technical view; accordingly, he prays that the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 may kindly be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent opposes the said submission and submits that the overall conduct of the petitioner was not proper and right from day one, as he is delaying the disposal of the main suit. He further submits that the suit was filed on 08.09.2017 and the petitioner is delaying the suit proceedings for one reason or another and that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts of the case in the right perspective and rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made by the respective counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the main suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 08.09.2017, wherein the present petitioner filed his written- statement on 28.05.2018 and from the order sheet of the suit proceedings, it is reflected that from 2017 till 05.08.2025, counsel for the petitioner was appearing in the matter, but thereafter, due to non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner, ex-parte [2025:RJ-JP:45292] (3 of 3) [CW-17202/2025] proceedings were drawn up on 05.08.2025. Since the petitioner gained knowledge of the said ex-parte proceedings being drawn against him, petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte proceedings on 30.10.2025. 7. Thus, a bare look to the order sheets of the case reflects that though the petitioner is vigilant in contesting the case and had appointed a lawyer for contesting the main suit, but on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the court and vide order dated 05.08.2025, ex-parte proceedings were initiated regarding which the petitioner has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 30.10.2025. 8. It is a trite law that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. When there is a conflict between procedural technicalities and the cause of substantial justice, the latter must prevail; therefore, since the matter pertains to immovable property, the petitioner's right to contest the suit is required to be protected. The petitioner's case has some merit to it. 9. Therefore, while considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC deserves to be accepted and the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 is required to be set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. 10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. 11. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /12