Whether approved for reporting?___________________________________________________

Virender Singh, Judge

(oral )

Notice issued against respondent received backafter due service, however, despite service, respondent has not opted to put appearance and contest the present case. As such, the respondent is ordered to be proceededagainst ex-parte.

2. Petitioner Jitender Singh has filed the present petition, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the order dated 6.11.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘theExecuting Court’).

2. By way of order dated 6.11.2025, the learned Executing Court has dismissed the application, under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, in Execution Petition No. 25 of 2024, titled as, ‘NIAC versus Jitenfder Singh’. The said Execution petition has been filed in Civil Suit No. 11/1of 2019, which was decreed on 30.4.2024.

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2024, the following relief was granted to the respondent by thelearned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Nahan, H.P.:

“In view thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled to recover thehamount of Rs. 1,01,043/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 27.4.2017 till the realization of the decretal amount, from the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after its due completion be consigned to H record room.”

4. Thereafter, the respondent had filed theexecution petition in the above titled Civil Suit.

5. Notice of the execution petition was issued to the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Judgment Debtor’). However, on 5.3.2025, the Judgment Debtor was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, the Judgment Debtor has moved application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which was dismissed by thelearned Executing Court, on 6.11.2025.

6. Against the said order, the Judgment Debtor has approached this Court with a prafyer to set aside the order, dated 6.11.2025, on the ground, that the approach adopted by the learned Executing Court, while dismissing the application, under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, he has put forward the plausible explanation for non-appearance before the learned Executing Court, on 5.3.2025. Copy of application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC has been annexedwith the petition as Annexure P-4.

7. As per the averments made in the application, the prayer for re-calling the ex-parte order dated 5.3.2025 has been made on the ground that after receiving the summons, the Judgment Debtor remained ill and the said summons was misplaced by him during white-wash work in the office of the Judgment Debtor. As per the Judgment Debor, on the aforesaid ground, he could not appear before the learned executing Court andwas proceeded against ex-parte.

8. The said application has been contested by the Decree-Holder by filing reply. As per the reply, factual position, as asserted in the application, has beencontroverted/denied. f

9. The learned Executing Court has dismissed the application, under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, on the ground, that he could not produce any record, pertaining to his alleged illness, nor sufficient cause has been shown by the Judgment Debtor qua his non-appearance, on5.3.2025.

10. The suit for recovery has been decreed against the Judgment Debtor and when, the execution has been filed, he could not put appearance on 5.3.2025 onaccount of the reasons, as mentioned in the application.

11. The reply of the Decree Holder is totally silent about the fact as to what object the Judgment Debtor is going to achieve by not appearing before the Court, had he not been prevented to do so, for the reasons, asmentioned in the application.

12. Considering the low legal literacy of the Indian Masses, it cannot be expected from the Judgment Debtor to not appear