IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 7599 of 2025

HARVEER SINGH RAGHUWANSHI

Versus

SMT. GEETA DEVALIYA

Appearance:

Petitioner- Shri Harveer Singh Raghuwanshi (self) present in person/

defendant.

Shri Arun Katare- Advocate for respondent- plaintiff.

ORDER constructed building (1000 square feet) in favour of respondent, along with possession, to be delivered within two months. Petitioner, aggrieved by ex parte decree, filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, which was dismissed due to non-appearance of petitioner under Order 9 Rule 8 of CPC on 24-04-2025 by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guna. Thereafter, petitioner filed another application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, which was also dismissed on 24-11-2025, in MJC No.92 of 2025 by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Guna. Subsequently, petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC along with application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC and Section 151 CPC, which was dismissed by Fifth District Judge, Guna, by the impugned order on ground of non-maintainability.

Petitioner has filed present Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, challenging legality and validity of order dated 16-12- 2025 passed by Fifth District Judge, Guna, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2025. By impugned order, petitioner’s appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was dismissed on ground of non-

maintainability.

2. Necessary facts giving rise to present petition are that respondent

filed Civil Suit No. 120-A of 2017 on 06-01-2017 before Court of Fifth Civil Judge, Class-I, Guna, seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding land situated at Patwari Halka No. 65 (Old No.76), Survey No. 824. An ex parte decree was passed in favour of respondent on 15-05-2019, directing petitioner to execute registered sale deed for land and semi-

Hence, present petition.

3. Petitioner, appearing in person, contends that he was unable to attend court on 24-04-2025 due to unavoidable agricultural work, a circumstance beyond his control. Petitioner claims that he had informed his lawyer of his inability to attend, but unfortunately, lawyer also failed to appear before court on scheduled date, leading to dismissal of MJC No.16/2021 on 24-04-2025. Petitioner submits that his absence should be excused as it was caused by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. He further contends that case was not properly adjudicated and that order passed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC was erroneously upheld by Court. Petitioner submits that Court should have condoned his absence, set aside order dated 24-04-2025, and provided opportunity for fresh hearing, allowing both parties to present their evidence. Petitioner also submits that learned Fifth District Judge, Guna, erred in rejecting his Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, holding it to be non-maintainable.

4. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent opposes petition and submits that petitioner had been provided with multiple opportunities to appear before the Court and present his evidence but failed to do so without providing any valid reasons for delay or absence. Respondent contends that petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was improperly filed, and therefore, the order dated 24-04-2025 should not be interfered with by the Court. Respondent further asserts that petitioner’s absence was unjustified, and the Court acted in accordance with law when dismissing the application. Respondent prays that present petition be dismissed and no relief be granted to petitioner.

5. After carefully considering facts and submissions of both parties, this Court finds merit in petitioner’s plea for reconsideration. Petitioner has demonstrated that his absence on 24-04-2025 was due to unavoidable agricultural commitments, and he had informed his lawyer of his inability to attend, although his lawyer also failed to appear. Thi