Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP SHAH
Radhe Shyam Aagal S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Aagal – Appellant
Versus
Lrs. Of Late Shri Nathu Lal Aagal, S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Aagal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the order allowing future participation despite ex-parte proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the implications of procedural rules regarding participation. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court’s justification for allowing participatory rights post-rejection of applications. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. procedural interpretation of order ix, rule 7 and implications on the trial stage. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has challenged the order dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned District Judge No.3, Bhilwara, Camp Mandalgarh, whereby though he dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC filed by the respondent No.3, however, he permitted to the respondent to contest in the proceedings in future from the date of the order. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.09.2024, by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for not permitting the respondent No.3 to appear in the proceedings was dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved against the above mentioned orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the ord
A defendant retains the right to participate in proceedings even after the rejection of an application under Order IX, Rule 7, provided they appear timely and engage with the trial process.
The right of the petitioner to contest the matter in execution proceedings and the imposition of appropriate cost to allow participation, as provided under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC.
Procedural due process requires all parties be notified of court hearings to ensure fair representation in proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing a defendant to participate in proceedings, ruling that procedural errors in ex-parte judgments violate principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering valid reasons for a party's non-appearance in court proceedings, reinforcing the principle of justice.
The Court established that a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is maintainable without a formal order setting the defendant ex parte, and the nature of the judgment and decree is determinative i....
Order setting defendant ex parte is not sine qua non for entertaining application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.
Timely appearance in court is essential under the CPC, and failure to comply without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal of applications for condonation of delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
