1 2025:CGHC:59562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1287 of 2025 1 - Krishna Kumar S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Kosrangi, P.S. Kharora, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Babulal Sahu S/o Late Aadhari Sahu Aged About 55 Years Caste Teli Kashtkari, R/o Village Kosrangi, P.S. Kharora, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sushila Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Kashtkari, R/o Village Kosrangi, P.H. No. 28/37, R.I. Circle Aarang, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 19/11/2025 by which the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant and the petitioner/defendant was 2 regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. He was proceeded ex-parte on 05/04/2025. Thereafter, on 09/06/2025, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was filed. The said application was rejected by learned Trial Court vide impugned order holding that as the civil suit was posted for judgment, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC would not be maintainable. He submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is bad in law. If the application for setting aside ex-parte order is not granted, it may cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the dispute is between the private parties. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 05/04/2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed for couple of occasions for recording of evidence and it was listed on 28/06/2025 for final hearing. After final hearing, the matter was posted after sometime for judgment. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex-parte order which was rejected vide impugned order. Learned trial Court relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and anr., (2005) 1 SCC 787. Paragraph 16 and 17 of the said judgment has been quoted in the impugned order. 6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovestated case, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The writ petition sans merit, thus fails and is dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 11:04:35 +0530