Each defendant in civil proceedings must fulfill their obligation independently. Persistent negligence cannot justify setting aside an ex parte order.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner, arrayed as defendant No.10 in Civil Suit No. CS-2556 of 2016 titled Mahender Singh Samriwal & Another v. State of Haryana & Others pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurugram, challenges two orders. The first is the order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-7), by which he was proceeded against ex parte. The second is the order dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure P-19), dismissing (i) his application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 03.11.2022 and (ii) a subsequent application seeking adjudication of the earlier application.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that in the recovery suit instituted by the plaintiffs (contesting respondents herein), the petitioner first appeared on 19.04.2017. Although he continued to mark presence on several subsequent dates, he did not file any written statement. On 03.11.2022, when neither he nor any authorised representative appeared, the trial Court proceeded against him ex parte, along with similarly situated defendants.

3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 12.04.2023 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order. However, on the date fixed for its consideration, i.e., 12.09.2023, he again remained absent. The trial Court recorded that he was “again proceeded ex parte.”

4. While the phrasing was technically incorrect, since he had already been proceeded ex parte on 03.11.2022, the misdescription did not, in law, revive his pending application nor create any substantive right in his favour. His non-appearance on the date fixed for the application amounted in effect to an abandonment of the same.

5. The subsequent proceedings also reflect continued negligence on the petitioner’s part. He again failed to appear on 04.07.2025. Although the trial Court repeated the earlier mistake of passing another “ex parte” order on that date, such an error of form does not invalidate the substantive position that the original ex parte order dated 03.11.2022 had not been set aside and continued to operate.

6. Ultimately, by a detailed order dated 02.08.2025, the trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, along with his later application seeking adjudication of the earlier one.

7. Assailing these orders, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that the suit involves as many as 17 defendants and that the principal relief is directed against others. It is urged that the petitioner was awaiting the filing of written statements by the principal defendants and, in this expectation, did not file his own written statement despite regular appearances. On this reasoning, counsel submits that the ex parte proceedings deserve to be set aside and an opportunity of contest be afforded.

8. The explanation furnished, however, does not inspire confidence. The petitioner first appeared on 19.04.2017, but for over five years took no steps to file a written statement. The CPC does not permit a defendant to indefinitely defer filing a written statement merely because other defendants have not yet filed theirs. The obligation to file a written statement within the statutory period, extended or otherwise, operates individually. A defendant who deliberately refrains from filing a written statement acts at his own peril. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that procedural delays or tactical waiting cannot constitute “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 7 CPC or Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and that negligent litigants cannot seek indulgence merely on the basis of participation on some