1 CGHC010477892025 2026:CGHC:37792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 218 of 2025 Balram Singh Thakur S/o Shri Raghunandan Singh Thakur Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Tahsil Lavon, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Omshankar Kshatriya S/o Shri Narayan Singh Kshatriya Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Tahsil Lavon, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Cause Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishtra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anmol Sharma & Mr. Gaurang Dubey, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) ORDER ON BOARD 24.08.2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC”) challenging the order dated 7.10.2025 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, Disrict Baloda Bazar in M.J.C. Case No. 111 of 2025 (Balram Singh Thakur vs. Omshankar) whereby application filed by the appellant / defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment & decree dated 18.06.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 09/2024, has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that respondent No. 1 / plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the appellant / 2 defendant. The Appellant entered appearance in the said suit; however, he neither filed his written statement nor submitted any reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPD, filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff and the appellant /defendant remained absent before the learned Court. Consequently, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him on 09.06.2025, and thereafter, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed against him on 18.06.2025. The appellant / defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 23.06.2025 for setting aside ex parte judgment & decree dated 18.06.2025, which has been rejected by learned Second Additional Distict Judge, Baloda Bazar vide impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed in M.J.C. Case No. 111/2025, which give rise to file instant miscellaneous appeal challenging the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the defendant had engaged an Advocate to represent him in Original Civil Suit No. 09/2024 (Omshankar Kshatriy vs. Balram Singh Thakur) and the said counsel had been duly representing the appellant / defendant in the matter. However, on 09.06.2025, without informing the appellant/defendant, the learned counsel remained absent, due to which the learned Trial Court initiated ex parte proceedings against the defendant. Thereafter, within a short span of only nine days, an ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025 was passed against him. He further submits that as soon as the appellant/defendant came to know about the passing of the ex parte judgment and decree, he acted with due diligence and, within five days thereof, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the learned Trial Court seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree. Thus, the non-appearance of the appellant/defendant on 09.06.2025 and the prompt filing of the application for restoration clearly demonstrate his bona fide conduct. Despite that, learned Trial Court has rejected the restoration application without properly appreciating the bona fides and the circumstances leading to the non-appearance of the 3 appellant/defendant. Hence, he prays that present appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, in MJC Case No. 111 of 2025, may kindly be set aside. Consequently, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Original Civil Suit No. 9-A/2024 may kindly be set aside, and the said suit may be restored to its original number, thereby affording the appellant/defendant an opportunity to contest the suit and place his defence on merits, in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/plaintiff would submit that the conduct of the appellant/defendant in the original civil suit has been completely negligent. Earlier, on account of his non-appearance, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him on 06.01.2025. The said proceedings were subsequently set aside after allowing the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC, vide order dated 16.04.2025. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant and/or his counsel again remained absent on 09.06.2025. Consequently, ex parte proceeding was once again initiated against him, and the case was fixed for recording the plaintiff’s ex parte evidence on 16.06.2025. Ultimately, an ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025 was passed by the learned Trial Court. It is next contended that respondent No. 1/plaintiff has already initiated execution proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and decree. Therefore, in view of the repeated and negligent conduct of the appellant/defendant, no indulgence is warranted in his favour, and the present appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts ought to have decided cases on their merits rather than dismissing them on technical grounds. At the 4 same time, it is the duty of the parties to extend full cooperation to the Court to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the case. 8. In the instant case, the appellant/defendant was initially represented by counsel. However, subsequently, the said counsel failed to appear on behalf of the appellant/defendant, therefore, ex parte proceeding was conducted against the appellant/defendant on two occasions, and ultimately, an ex parte judgment and decree came to be passed on 18.06.2025 in Original Civil Suit No. 9-A/2024. Immediately, thereafter, within a period of five days, the appellant/defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree. The said application was filed on 23.06.2025 and was registered as MJC Case No. 111/2025. After affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the learned Court rejected the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. 9. Appellant/defendant has filed photo-copies of the order-sheets of original civil suit No. 9-A/24, which shows that up to some extent neither the appellant nor his counsel was cooperating with the court to ensure the speedy disposal of the suit. Consequently, the concerned trial court was compelled to pass ex parte orders against the appellant/defendant on two occasions. However, it is also a common practice that, after engaging counsel, the parties may not remain in regular contact with their counsel or obtain information from them regarding the progress and proceedings of the case. 10. In the case in hand, within five days from passing ex parte judgment & decree by the trial Court, appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, which shows that he wants to contest the case on merits, but conduct of the appellant/defendant also cannot be overlooked that even after engaging counsel, he did not remain in contact with him, resulting in ex-parte proceedings being initiated against him on two occasions. 5 11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and totality of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the instant appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, in MJC Case No. 111 of 2025, as well as the ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2024, are hereby set aside/quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Respondent No. 1/plaintiff. 13. Upon payment of the aforesaid costs by Appellant/Defendant No. 1 within a period of 15 days from today, the learned Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, learned Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar is directed to restore the original civil suit No. 9-A/2024 to its original number and decide the same in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to cooperate in the proceedings of the suit for its expeditious disposal. 14. With the aforesaid observation (s) & directions, misc. appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 15. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.25 18:19:49 +0530