1 CGHC010380172026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1279 of 2026 1 - Kanglu Bisnath Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Umradah District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 2 - Dungru S/o Firtu Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 3 - Sukhbati W/o Late Birsingh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Umradah District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 4 - Anil S/o Late Smt Shivbati W/o Satte Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bevrati District North Bastar Kanker C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Risanbai W/o Late Mahanjan Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Gotpur Tahsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 2 - Manish S/o Late Mahajan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gotpur Tahsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 3 - Mithlesh S/o Late Mahajan Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gotpur Tahsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 4 - Smt Asha D/o Late Mahajan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gotpur Tahsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 5 - Smt Pawara D/o Late Mahajan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Gotpur Tahsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 6 - Saradhu Mangal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Dhodhabandha Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 7 - Smt Madhu Mangal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dhodhabandha Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 8 - Smt Sukhayarin W/o Anjori Aged About 61 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.10.01 12:35:46 +0530 2 9 - Narayan S/o Anjori Aged About 47 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 10 - Naresh S/o Anjori Aged About 35 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 11 - Ku Narmada D/o Anjori Aged About 34 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 12 - Ku Rajeshwari D/o Anjori Aged About 33 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 13 - Smt Baniharin W/o Ganeshram Aged About 72 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 14 - Suruj S/o Ganeshram Aged About 42 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 15 - Prasad S/o Ganeshram Aged About 40 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 16 - Ramlal (Died Thourgh Lrs) Wrongly Mentioned As Ramlal In Impugned Order S/o Samaru Ram Aged About 42 Years 16.1 - Annu S/o Ramlal Aged About 38 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G 17 - Ramadhar (Died Through Lrs) Nil 17.1 - Bhima Late Ramadhar Aged About 36 Years R/o Narharpur Tahsill Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 18 - Smt Baro (Died) Nil 19 - Smt Sonai Bai Dheera R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. 20 - Smt Sonai Bai (Died) Nil 21 - Smt Sohata Bai D/o Dheera R/o Narharpur Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker C. G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 3 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Baster Kanker, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/2024, whereby the misc. appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Baster Kanker, in Misc. Civil Suit No. 23/2017 has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest were the defendants in Civil Suit No. 6-A/1975, which was proceeded ex parte on 24.09.1975 and an ex parte decree was passed on 25.09.1975. Since the petitioners had gone for their livelihood, they could not defend their case before the learned trial Court and they were unaware about the passing of the ex parte decree. In the meantime, some of the defendants also died and their legal representatives were unaware about the proceedings. When they tried to search for their case, they could not get the same from their counsel as the record was quite old and they could not obtain certified copies. After taking advice from various counsels and other persons, they filed their application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.09.1975 by filing their application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the year 2007. The application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.10.2017 due to some technical defect and thereafter present application is filed on 03.11.2017. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 01.10.2024 and thereafter the misc. appeal filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the learned appellate Court. He would further submit that the property right was preferred in the suit and by the impugned judgment and decree, the petitioners are being deprived of their rights over the property, which is their ancestral property. 4 Though there is some delay in making the application, the reason for the delay is that they had gone to earn their livelihood; in the meantime, various predecessors-in-interest had died and their legal representatives were unaware about the proceedings. The learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground of long delay, whereas the explanation submitted along with the application has not been properly considered. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court may be set aside and Civil Suit No. 6-A/1975 may be restored to its original number by setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.09.1975. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. The subject judgment and decree dated 25.09.1975 was passed ex parte. It transpires from the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 that the defendants, who are the petitioners herein, had participated in the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 6-A/1975 up to 24.09.1975 and had kept present their witnesses in the said civil suit, and it is only thereafter, they remained absent from the proceedings from 24.09.1975, and thereafter an ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 25.09.1975. From 1975 till 2007, the petitioners did nothing and remained ideal. The earlier application filed in the year 2007 was withdrawn due to technical defect on 10.10.2017, and thereafter filed the present petition. When the petitioners filed their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, there were no steps taken by the petitioners to ascertain the status of the suit and to file an appropriate application if they had been proceeded ex parte or an ex parte 5 judgment and decree had been passed against them. The present application has been filed after about 32 years. The petitioners could not demonstrate any plausible explanation for remaining silent for about 32 years despite knowing about the pendency of the civil suit and having earlier participated in the same up to 24.09.1975. Such a huge delay in making an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for reopening Civil Suit No. 6-A/1975 cannot be permissible in the absence of any plausible explanation. The explanation submitted by the petitioners is not bona fide. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has rightly rejected the application and the appeal filed by the petitioners. 5. From perusal of the entire material produced by the petitioners in the present writ petition, I do not find any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and dismissal of the appeal by the appellate Court. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok