1 2025:CGHC:50064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5233 of 2025 1 - Anil Kumar Dash S/o Banmali Dash Aged About 53 Years R/o Flat No. 110, Bhadriprasad Apartment, Near Ganpati Hotel, Bargarh, Police Station Sadar Bargarh (Odisha) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Pankojani Das W/o Shri R.B. Dash, R/o J-78, Sector-2, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner/judgment debtor challenges the order dated 23.6.2025 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in Execution Case No.03-B/2024. Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.10 16:39:59 +0530 2 2. The petitioner seeks following reliefs in this petition: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 23-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) and also be pleased to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC and also be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the execution case bearing Execution Case No.03-B/2024 pending before the Court of learned First Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.6.2025 has been passed without proper appreciation of the fact that though the proceedings on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is pending before the Trial Court, the Executing Court, which is also the Trial Court before which the said application for setting aside ex parte judgment is pending, is proceeding further in the execution case, whereas the petitioner has already made his appearance in the case. The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC and prayed for stay of further proceedings in the execution case as the judgment has been passed ex parte against the petitioner without proper appreciation of the fact that though the petitioner was ready and willing to take part in the proceeding, due to lack of proper communication to him he could not contest the case. 3 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the impugned order dated 23.6.2025 (Annexure P1), this Court finds that there is neither any jurisdictional error nor any illegality and, therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. However, it is expected from the Trial Court that it shall decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC expeditiously as soon as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal