1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 874 of 2023 1 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Registered Office- 17 Mansetji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra/ Regional Office Madina, 2nd Floor Medical College Road Raipur By Chief Regional Manager Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jitendra Agrawal S/o Late Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Charoda Bus Stand Charoda, Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Bus Stand Charoda, Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) 3 - Jainendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Deocharan Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Balaji Service Station, Padumnagar Bhilai 3, Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh/ Resident- 4/341 Kasturba Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) / Defendant No. 2 : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 / Defendant No. 1 : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 15/10/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.10.16 10:22:41 +0530 2 the order dated 14.09.2023 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2022 by the 8th Additional District Judge, Durg by which the appeal of the petitioner/defendant No. 2 under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC was dismissed affirming the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Bhilai-3, District Durg, CG in MJC No. 40 of 2022 by which the application of the petitioner/defendant No. 2 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside and ex-parte judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 2A/2020 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff against the petitioner / defendant No. 2, respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 1 and one Jainendra Kumar Singh before the trial Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 02A/2020. The prayer which was made in the civil suit was in respect of restoration of empty / vacant possession of property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 437/2015 and 437/2017 at GE Road Charoda, District Durg, CG upon which a retail outlet (Petrol Pump) of the petitioner / defendant No. 2 was installed which was being operated through respondent No.2 / defendant No. 1. The summons of the suit was issued to the respective parties, the petitioner / defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte in the civil suit and vide its judgment and decree dated 04.12.2021 the suit was allowed and the decree to the vacant possession of the suit property was passed against all the defendants in suit with arrears of rent of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation against the defendant No. 1. As the petitioner / defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner / defendant No. 2 before the learned trial Court. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 30.07.2022. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate Court which also stood dismissed by the impugned order which led to filing of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant No. 2 further submits that both the Courts below committed an error of law in fact in rejecting the application of the petitioner / defendant No. 2 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The petitioner / defendant No. 2 is able to prove that his non appearance before the learned trial Court was bona-fide and he was prevented by sufficient cause to appear before the learned trial Court, 3 therefore, this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order and the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 2A/2020 by the learned trial Court may be set aside and its may be restored to its original number. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff submits that both the Courts have given a categorical finding that the petitioner / defendant No. 2 could not prove the sufficient ground for its non appearance before the trial court and the such concurrent finding of fact may not be disturbed in this writ jurisdiction. 5. The argument of Mr. Mehta is also adopted by Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 1. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document on record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that on the suit property, a retail outlet (Petrol Pump) of the petitioner / defendant No. 2 was installed which was being operated by respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 1. It is also not a dispute that the lease granted for that suit land has already come to an end. Mr. Asgar during the course of arguments submitted that as the suit property was encircled with the boundary wall and the valuable installations were present in the suit property which was being stolen, a the writ petition was filed before this Court. Later on with the interference of the administration, the installations erected over the suit property has already been taken by the petitioner. Perusal of records also indicates that the learned trial Court has given a categorical finding that the petitioner / defendant No. 2 could not prove the sufficient cause for his non appearance for setting aside the impugned and decree. The findings of fact has also been affirmed by the appellate Court affirming the order of the trial Court. The finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse contrary to the evidence on records and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not inclined to interference with the finding so recorded. 8. In view of above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan