1 2026:CGHC:4522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1218 of 2025 1 - Moharsai Jaiswal S/o Late Narottam Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Beltikri, Tah. Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 2 - Mohit Kumar Jaiswal S/o Narottam Jaiswal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Beltikri, Tah. Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 3 - Smt. Laxmin Jaiswal D/o Late Narottam Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Beltikri, Tah. Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kartikkunwar Jaiswal W/o Radheshyam Jaiswal Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Beltikri, Tah. Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 2 - Laxman Jaiswal S/o Belihar Jaiswal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Beltikri, Tah. Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rohitashwa Singh, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27.01.2026 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh–Bilaigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.01.28 16:59:23 +0530 2 as “Appellate Court”) whereby Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 04/2025 filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Bhatgaon to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Civil Judge”), by which the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, declaration of the sale deed as null and void, and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property which is better described in Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ appended to the plaint. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No. J-51-A/2024. Summons were issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and as they allegedly refused to accept the summons, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 proceeded ex parte against them. After recording the evidence of the plaintiff, ex parte judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025 was passed by the Civil Judge. She further submits that thereafter respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree which was registered as an unregistered case/2025. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 05.05.2025 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a miscellaneous appeal which came to be allowed by the Appellate Court by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the summons issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was duly served and as they refused to accept the summons, service was complete in the eye of law. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge rightly proceeded ex parte against them and passed the ex parte 3 judgment and decree in favour of the petitioners. She submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to establish any sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree and the order passed by the Civil Judge was just and proper. She submits that the Appellate Court committed an error in setting aside the said order, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the summons of the civil suit were not duly and properly served upon them. He submits that the Civil Judge had directed issuance of summons through ordinary mode; however, the petitioner paid the process fee for service through registered post. The allegation is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 refused to accept the summons is not supported by proper material, as the returned postal envelope does not bear any seal or signature of any postal official. These aspects were duly considered by the Appellate Court while recording a finding that the summons were not duly served upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the dispute is essentially between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 has no substantial role in the controversy. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte by the Civil Judge vide order dated 28.02.2024 and proceeded on the reasoning that the summons issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were refused by them. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. In appeal, the Appellate Court recorded a categorical finding that the returned envelope did not contain 4 the signature or seal of any postal employee. It was further observed that in the absence of any specific order directing issuance of summons through registered post, the petitioner paid the process fee for registered service. On these grounds, the Appellate Court held that the summons were not duly served upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that the ex parte judgment and decree were passed without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning assigned by the learned Appellate Court is based upon proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 warranting no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari