1 CGHC010322012026 2026:CGHC:38528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1110 of 2026 Jaylal Kewat S/o Chimna Kewat Aged About 62 Years R/o Village And Post Jatari, Tahsil Pusour, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Nandram Patel S/o Thandaram Patel Aged About 65 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village And Post Jatari, Tahsil Pusour, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 passed by learned Fifth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. A/136 of 2025 by which the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC has been allowed and the ex-parte SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.02 13:52:25 +0530 2 proceeding dated 06.12.2025 is set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit has been filed in the year 2025 and the respondent No1. was deliberately remained absent in the proceeding and get himself declared ex-parte, constructed his house and thereafter, filed an application on 15.04.2026 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court on 15.07.2026. The deliberate act of the respondent No.1 does not appears to be bona fide absent on 06.12.2025 when he was declared ex-parte. Due to the act of the respondent No.1, the trial of the case is withheld and delayed. He would further submit that after declaring the respondent No.1 ex-parte, the ex-parte evidence of the petitioner has already been recorded and now, after setting aside the ex-parte order, he filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for filing written statement and permitting him to appear in the further proceeding of the suit, which may cause delay in deciding the suit. Considering the deliberate act of the respondent No.1, the application ought to have been dismissed, but the same has been allowed, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the ex-parte proceeding against the respondent No.1 may be maintained. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. It transpires from the document annexed with the petition that the ex- parte proceeding against the respondent No.1 was drawn on 06.12.2025 and on 15.04.2026 the respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding. 3 From perusal of the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC (Annexure P-7), it transpires that the respondent No.1 is claimed to be 67 years old aged person suffering from various ailments and due to his health condition, he could not appear on 06.12.2025 and ex-parte proceeding was drawn against him. As and when he recovered from his ailment, he filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and permitting him to participate in the proceeding of the suit. In view of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, I do not find any illegality or perversity or even the jurisdictional error allowing the application and setting aside the ex-parte order, permitting the petitioner to participate in the further proceeding. 6. The contention of the petitioner that the act of the respondent No.1 is deliberate as in between that he already constructed his house unauthorizedly, does not appears to be convincing. Further that, even if respondent No.1 has raised any construction over the subject property, if any, the petitioner is having alternate remedy for the same, but that cannot be a ground to reject his application for setting aside ex-parte order, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by learned trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit