IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 5917 of 2025

AKHILESH PATEL

Versus

SMT. KRISHNA PATEL AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Jayant Prakash Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain - Advocate with Ms. Sonali Jain - Advocate

for respondent No.2.

ORDER

By way of this petition challenge is made to the order dated

03.07.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC without passing any specific order

that the petitioner would be entitled to participate in future proceedings. 2. Initially the suit which had been filed in the year 2014 was decided

vide judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 and the suit was dismissed. Against dismissal of the suit the plaintiff filed appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court for some limited purpose to record evidence in view of the documents produced before the appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and then decide the suit afresh. The present petitioner was ex-parte even before the appellate

Court.

3. After the proceedings restarted before the trial Court, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order. The trial Court held that looking to the averments of the application it appears that the petitioner had knowledge of the judgment and decree and he willfully remained exparte during pendency of the suit in the earlier round and even after having knowledge of pendency of appeal he did not appear in appeal, nor appeared in the suit immediately after remand order was passed by the trial Court and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC only on 08.05.2025 though the remand order of the appellate Court is dated

25.09.2023.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that it is settled in law that even upon rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC the defendant has aright to participate in future proceedings and relied on judgment of Coordinate Bench Court in case of Haridas Kacchi Vs. Jay Krishan Puranik reported in ILR (2016) MP 39. 5 . The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contended that subsequently the trial court has passed a specific order on 09.10.2025 granting permission to the petitioner-defendant No.5 to participate in future proceedings.

6. In view of the subsequent order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has permitted the petitioner to participate in future proceedings, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is disposed off.

7. As the suit is of the year 2014, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within 4 months from the date of production of copy of this order.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE nks