1 CGHC010318382026 2026:CGHC:36704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1043 of 2026 1 - Pannalal Vishwakarma S/o Late Kashiram Vishwakarma Aged About 72 Years R/o Pachpedi Naka, In Front Of Pujari Complex, Raipur, District Raipur C. G. 2 - Trilok Singh Rajput S/o Late Patiram Singh Rajput Aged About 57 Years Petitioner No. 2 To 4,- R/o 173, Ganpat Chowk, Hirapur Jarvay Raipur District Raipur C. G. 3 - Shubham Singh Rajput S/o Shri Vishnu Singh Rajput Aged About 28 Years R/o 173, Ganpat Chowk, Hirapur Jarvay Raipur District Raipur 4 - Bhupendra Singh Rajput S/o Late Mahesh Singh Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o 173, Ganpat Chowk, Hirapur Jarvay Raipur District Raipur C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Deepak Gupta S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Gupta Aged About 70 Years R/o Amanaka G. E. Road Raipur District Raipur C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 17/08/2026 Present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the learned 11th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 179-A/2025, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are defendants in the suit instituted by the respondent seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 11.05.2022 is null and void, along with a prayer for permanent injunction. It is submitted that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed their written statement on 15.12.2025, whereas defendant No.1 filed his written statement on 19.12.2025. Thereafter, issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 22.04.2026. 3. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the proceedings, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex parte on 10.04.2026 and, thereafter, defendant No.1 was also proceeded ex parte on 22.04.2026. Defendant No.1 thereafter preferred an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC on 30.04.2026, as reflected from Annexure P/2 to the petition, while defendant Nos. 2 to 4 preferred a similar application on 12.05.2026. 4. He submits that the said applications came to be rejected by the 3 learned Trial Court on 13.07.2026, principally on the ground that the defendants had failed to demonstrate their bona fides and had not furnished any plausible explanation for their non-appearance. It is contended that the dispute relates to valuable property rights and, if the petitioners are denied an opportunity to participate in the trial and put forth their defence, they would suffer serious prejudice. It is further submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff has not yet commenced and, therefore, permitting the petitioners to participate in the further proceedings would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 6. The fact that the petitioners were proceeded ex parte and that they subsequently preferred applications under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC is not in dispute. Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC reads as under: “7. Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance.—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 directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.” A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that where the hearing of a suit has been adjourned ex parte, the defendant is entitled to seek recall of the ex parte proceedings upon appearing at or before the adjourned hearing and assigning good cause for his 4 previous non-appearance. The provision is intended to afford the defendant an opportunity to participate in the proceedings upon such terms as the Court may deem appropriate, including payment of costs. 7. In the present case, the petitioners had already entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. Issues have also been framed. Significantly, the evidence of the plaintiff has not yet commenced and the plaintiff's evidence has been fixed for 27.08.2026. Thus, the trial has not proceeded to the stage of recording of evidence. 8. Be that as it may, since the plaintiff’s evidence has not yet commenced, the petitioners are not seeking to participate in the proceedings retrospectively from the date on which they were proceeded exparte. Their prayer is confined to being permitted to participate in the proceedings from the present stage and to contest the suit in accordance with law. In such circumstances, permitting the petitioners to participate in the further proceedings would neither cause any prejudice to the plaintiff nor affect the proceedings already undertaken in their absence. 9. The right of a party to effectively defend a civil action, particularly where valuable property rights are involved, cannot ordinarily be defeated on a technical consideration when the proceedings have not yet progressed to the stage of recording evidence. At the same time, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to efface the proceedings already validly conducted against them. Their participation, therefore, has to be confined to the stage at which the proceedings 5 presently stand, subject to such terms as may be considered appropriate by the learned Trial Court. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when the petitioners have already filed their written statements, issues have been framed and the plaintiff's evidence is yet to commence, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served by permitting the petitioners to participate in the further proceedings of the suit. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the learned 11th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 179-A/2025 is set aside to the aforesaid extent. The petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 shall be permitted to participate in the further proceedings of the suit from the present stage, in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously and in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.19 13:03:53 +0530