1 / 6 2026:CGHC:16511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 414 of 2026 1 - Shrimati Pushpa Agrawal W/o Anil Kumar Agrawal, Presently Aged About 51 Years 2 - Shrimati Anita Agrawal W/o Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Presently Aged About 50 Years Both R/o Banaras Chowk, At Post Ambikapur Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Devmuniya Wd/o Late Diplal, Presently Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Gonda, Tehsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur, C.G. (Plaintiff) 2 - Anil Agrawal S/o Bajrang Agrawal, Presently Aged About 54 Years (Defendant No.3) 3 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Bajrang Agrawal, Presently Aged About 52 Years, (Defendant No.4) Respondent No.2 and 3, Both R/o Banaras Chowk, At Post Ambikapur Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, C.G. (Defendant no.5) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State /Respondent No.4 : Ms. Richa Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 09/04/2026 2 / 6 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18/03/2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pratappur, District Surajpur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.6A/18 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 before the learned trial Court in the said civil suit. He would next submit that the petitioners have filed their written statement, however, on 07/12/2024 in their absence an ex-parte proceeding was drawn against them. The petitioners moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order on 16/10/2025 and the said application was considered by the learned trial Court on 17/12/2025 and the said application has been dismissed on technical grounds that along with the application the Vakalatnama of the applicants has not been filed and liberty was granted to the petitioners to file their application afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter the afresh application was filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 27/01/2026. It is also submitted that the trial Court has again dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on the ground that the petitioners could not explain the sufficient reason of their non- appearance on 07/12/2024 and therefore, they cannot be permitted to participate in the proceedings of the suit. He would next contend that the petitioners are not claiming to be permitted to participate in the 3 / 6 earlier proceedings of the suit, but they are claiming for participation in the proceeding from 27/01/2026, i.e., when they have moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC which the trial Court has rejected and has not permitted the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. He would further submit that now the case has been fixed for 13/04/2026 for recording of the plaintiff’s evidence. He submits that the petitioners can be restrained from participating in the proceeding only for the date when they were proceeded ex-parte and there is no bar to participate in subsequent proceedings of the case. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and Others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 (V 51 C 128). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC provides a procedure 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, then if the Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the defendants, may set aside the ex-parte order and allow the defendant to join the proceedings from that stage onwards. 6. For proper appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: “Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the 4 / 6 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.” 7. The scope and ambit of the aforesaid provision has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh (Supra) wherein it has been held that the provision is intended to advance the cause of justice by enabling a party, against whom proceedings have been directed to proceed ex parte, to participate in the proceedings upon showing sufficient cause for earlier non-appearance, though such participation is from the stage at which the party appears and does not entitle reopening of the entire proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh (Supra) has held thus in para 15 relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 15. …………………………………….“If a party does appear on the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjouned, he cannot be stopped from participating in the proceedings simply because he did not appear on the first or some other hearing. But though he has the right to appear at an adjourned hearing, he has no right to set back the hands of the clock. Order IX R. 7 makes that clear. Therefore, unless he can show good cause, he must 5 / 6 accept all that has gone before and be content to proceed from the stage at which he comes in.”……... 8. In the present case, the suit is admittedly still pending and no final adjudication has been rendered. The petitioners have clearly limited their claim by accepting all proceedings conducted in their absence from 07.12.2024 till 27.01.2026, i.e., the date of filing of their application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, and have sought permission only to participate in the proceedings thereafter. The learned trial Court, however, rejected the application by adopting a hyper-technical approach in assessing “sufficient cause”, without considering that the petitioners were not seeking to disturb the proceedings already undertaken and were only praying for prospective participation. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the approach of the trial Court suffers from material irregularity and amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Denial of an opportunity to participate in the ongoing proceedings would result in serious prejudice to the petitioners, whereas permitting them to participate from the subsequent stage would not cause any irreparable prejudice to the respondents, particularly when the earlier proceedings from 07.12.2024 till 27.01.2026 are not being questioned by the petitioners. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh (Supra) and the facts of the present case, the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 cannot be sustained. 6 / 6 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2026 is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC stands allowed. The petitioners are permitted to participate in the proceedings of the suit prospectively from the stage subsequent to 27.01.2026, and it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to reopen, recall or challenge any proceedings conducted by the trial Court during the period from 07.12.2024 till 27.01.2026. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with law. No order as to costs. SD/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE ashu