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

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6274 of 2025 HANSHPATI Versus FULESHVARI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Krishan Kumar Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mahesh Prasad Shukla - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.

Shri D.P. Sharma - P.L. for the State.

ORDER The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 05.08.2025, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-defendant for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings drawn against him.

2. Ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner-defendant vide order dated 15.05.2024. He filed an application for setting aside ex- parte proceedings on 13.02.2025, which has been rejected by the trial Court and even no opportunity to participate in future proceedings has been granted.

3. The trial Court has recorded that the petitioner-defendant was granted several opportunities from 09.01.2023 onwards for filing of the written statement, but he did not file his written statement for a long time and ultimately he was proceeded ex-parte on 15.05.2024, when he and his counsel were not present.

4. Upon hearing counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 15.05.2024 and the proposed issues were settled on 17.01.2025 and on the very next date the petitioner filed application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, i.e. on 13.02.2025. No substantial progress had been made in the suit in the intervening period and only on the very previous date to filing of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the proposed issues had been finalized and settled.

5. As per settled law, the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 have to be liberally constituted and the provisions of proceeding ex-parte against the defendant are not penal provisions. 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.

215 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/-."

6. In the present case, the petitioner-defendant appeared before the trial Court within eight months of being declared ex-parte. It was stated by him in the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC that on 15.05.2024 he was suffering from fever and along with application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, he also submitted his written statement.

7. Though the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is not very happily drafted, but looking to the position the initial stage of the suit and the petitioner having filed his written statement, the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC were to be liberally construed in this case.

8. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. stands allowed subject to the petitioner-defendant paying a cost of Rs.5,000/-

to plaintiff before the trial Court within 15 days from today. 9. With