IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6790 of 2025 SANJAY KUMAR RAIKWAR AND OTHERS Versus RAGHVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR (DIED) THROUGH LRS SMT PRABHA PARIHAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 04.11.2025, whereby the trial Court has rejected application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by the petitioners, who are defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit has been filed for specific performance and the present petitioners are the purchasers of the suit property to whom the owner had sold despite entering into agreement with the plaintiff. It is contended that the valuable rights of the petitioners are involved in the matter and therefore, interference be made in the said order passed by the trial Court. It is further contended that though the trial Court has permitted the petitioners to participate in further proceedings in the suit, but since the case is now being fixed for plaintiff evidence and the stage of filing written statement is over, therefore, the petitioners would not be able to file their written statement and hence, the valuable rights of the petitioners will be affected. It is further argued that though the suit had been filed in the year 2018 and defendant No.4 had been declared ex-parte on 07.12.2018 while defendant No.3 had been proceeded ex- parte on 05.10.2021, but there has not been much progress in the suit since then and the plaintiff evidence has not yet started and in such circumstances if the petitioners being defendant Nos.3 and 4 are granted opportunity to participate in the suit by filing written statement, then it would serve the interests of justice.

3. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner had filed application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which as per the settled law is not of penal nature and is usually to be liberally construed. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramhet and others vs. Ajaypal Singh and others 2003(1) M.P.L.J. has held as under:-

"5. It is settled law that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code are not of a penal nature and any application filed under Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code is liberally allowed. For this purpose the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54 which says that the application for setting aside ex-parte order should be liberally allowed. In view of the judgment, in my opinion, the trial Court should have liberally allowed the application filed by the present appellants under Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. Thus, both the courts have erred in rejecting the said application. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and are hereby set aside. The application filed by the present appellants under Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code is allowed and the order for proceeding ex-parte is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-."

4. In the present case, it has been stated by the defendant No.3 in the application that the said defendant could not remain in contact with this counsel on account of family circumstances and as soon as he came to know that he is being proceeded ex-parte, then he has got this application filed under Order 9 Rule

7 CPC in October, 2025.

5. Similarly, defendant No.4 in his application had contended that though he had received summons from the trial Court, but since he usually does not keep well and suffers from ill health and therefore, he forgot to engage a counsel and appear before the Court and then the matter skipped from his mind. Later on he came to know that the suit is being proceeded ex-parte and he