1 CGHC010320582026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1050 of 2026 Baratu Ram S/o Bachharam Aged About 66 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Urmila D/o Dalan Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd, Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Purnima D/o Dalan Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd, Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sailprabha D/o Dalan Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd, Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Pramila D/o Dalan Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd, Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Amar Singh S/o Dalan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd, Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Harihar S/o Dalan Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill- Paladikhurd, Tah. New Baradwar, Distt- Sakti (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Sakti Distt- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahil Sahu, Advocate For State- Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Rohan Shukla, P.L. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Order on Board 18/08/2026 Heard. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 34-A of 2023, whereby the application filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 5 under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants remained absent on 09.05.2025, 26.08.2025, and 10.09.2025. Therefore, the learned Trial Court proceeded ex parte against them on 10.09.2025. Since the defendants were negligent in prosecuting their case, the learned Trial Court proceeded ex parte against them. However, without considering the fact that the defendants had been avoiding the court proceedings and had failed to appear in the case, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 5 under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC and permitted them to participate in the further proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 5 may be dismissed. 3 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. The present case concerns an application filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 5 under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order, which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court. 5. From a perusal of the provisions of Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC, it transpires that where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court may direct as to costs or otherwise, be heard in the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance. 6. In the present case, defendant Nos. 3 and 5 filed their application on 04.12.2025 and showed sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 09.05.2025, 26.08.2025, and 10.09.2025. The learned Trial Court, after considering the explanation furnished by them, allowed the application by imposing costs of Rs. 700/- upon defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and permitted them to participate in the further proceedings of the suit. Since the learned Trial Court has already exercised its jurisdiction by permitting defendant Nos. 3 and 5 to participate in the further proceedings of the suit, which, in the opinion of this Court, is in accordance with the provisions contained in Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh