p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.96 of 2025 Surendra Kumar Sahoo@Surendra Sahoo …. Petitioner Ms. Mamata Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Prafulla Kumar Jena & others …. Opposite Parties None And CMP No.97 of 2025 Surendra Kumar Sahoo@Surendra Sahoo …. Petitioner Ms. Mamata Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Prafulla Kumar Jena & others …. Opposite Parties None CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 19.02.2025 01. 1. Heard Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No notices are issued to the opposite parties, as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Annexure-1, whereby, ex parte order against him was not set aside in terms of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and the W.S. as at Annexure-3 was not received on the grounds stated therein. p. 2 4. Referring to the applications as at Annexure4, it is submitted by Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the ex parte order is of the year, 2023, which is required to be set aside in the interest of justice, as the petitioner is to defend the suit in absence of the vendors, from whom he acquired the suit schedule land in the year, 2018 as a lis pendense purchaser. It is further submitted that the learned Court below lost sight of the aforesaid aspect and decline to set aside the ex parte order of 2023 allowing the petitioner to participate accepting W.S. filed by him and hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside. 5. It is informed to the Court that the hearing of the suit is in progress, whereafter, the petitioner is to adduce defence evidence. Gone through the consolidated plaint dated 13th December, 2024 as at Annexure-2. The suit is for right, title and interest and confirmation of possession in favour of the plaintiff with other consequential relief and to declare the MS RoR published in the name of the defendant to be illegal. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is the sole purchaser. In so far as the vendors are concerned, in fact, it is claimed that opposite party Nos.3, 5 and 6 had sold the suit land to the petitioner in the year, 2018. 6. Considering the submission of Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the vendors have been set exparte and hence, the suit is now to be defended by the petitioner only being the lis pendense purchaser, he having substantial interest being involved and the fact that the hearing of the suit is in progress, the Court is of the view that such an ex parte order should have been set aside exercising of powers under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC accepting the W.S. filed along with the application. In other words, in order to do substantial justice, the parties and in particular, the petitioner being the lis pendense purchaser, as his vendors are no more contesting p. 3 the suit having been set ex parte and in the fitness of things, the ex parte order against him should be set aside receiving the W.S. from him for a disposal of the suit as per and in accordance with law or else he would be substantially prejudiced. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the petitions stand allowed. Consequently, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is set aside with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur to receive the W.S. and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the suit according to law. As a necessary corollary, the ex parte order-vis-à-vis the petitioner is also set aside, As such, the Court further directs acceptance of W.S. from the petitioner and it shall be upon receiving a cost of Rs.1000/- from him receivable by the contesting defendants. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram