Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
Nafe Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kumar - Respondent
CR-5420-2025
Decided On : 13-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for application under cpc discussed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. analysis of judicial error in ex-parte proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. conclusion on error and revocation of ex-parte status. (Para 4) |
Virinder Aggarwal, J.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.07.2025, vide which the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by the petitioner was declined.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the application are that the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on 24.04.2025, he was unable to appear as his counsel was also absent until 13:50 hours, following which the Court passed an order. The petitioner sought to set aside this order by filing an application on the very next date. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, declined the application vide the impugned order, observing that the counsel’s absence due to being engaged in another Court did not constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance, and the applicant failed to specify his own exact whereabouts on that day.
3. In its zeal to expeditiously dispose off the case, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, overlooked settled legal principles. Since the petitioner appeared on the very next date, the Court was obligated to permit the petitioner to join the proceedings at that stage. A perusal of the record reveals that the case was still at a stage where it was when the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Accordingly, considering all the above facts and circumstances, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri has committed grave jurisdictional error and the order assailed by the petitioner is not sustainable. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and ex-parte proceedings are set aside.
Ex-parte proceedings are unsustainable if a party appears on the subsequent date, highlighting the right to be heard.
The need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under CPC Order IX Rule 7 to enable complete justice between the parties.
A party cannot shift their accountability for negligence to their attorney; multiple applications dismissed for the same reasons demonstrate abuse of the judicial process.
Supervisory jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable; it cannot be invoked by a litigant who fails to exercise diligence, provides unsubstantiated reasons for procedural delays, or exhibits inordi....
A party must demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and file timely applications to set aside ex-parte judgments, supported by evidence.
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
