S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioner, who is the Opposite Party No.1 before the Court below in M.A.C No.64 of 2011, pending in the Court of District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T, Jharsuguda, has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 27.12.2016, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte order dated 03.04.2014 and accept his Written Statement was rejected.

Page 2 of 14 2.

The brief background facts, as emerged from the record, are that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 filed M.A.C. No.64 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Jharsuguda claiming compensation due to vehicular accident of the husband of Opposite Party No.1. The Petitioner, being the owner of the offending vehicle, on being noticed, though entered appearance in the said case, but could not filed his Written Statement for which, he was set ex-parte on 03.04.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the Written Statement along with a Petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. on or about 04.09.2015 praying therein to set aside the ex-parte order passed against him so also to accept the Written Statement taking a plea in the said Petition that he could not filed the Written Statement earlier due to his serious illness, for which he was advised bed rest.

3. It is further case of the Petitioner that, the present Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 (claimants before the Court below) did not file any objection to the said petition filed by the Petitioner controverting the ground of illness taken by the Petitioner, thereby necessitating the Petitioner to file any document in support of his illness. Thereafter, the District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T, Jharsuguda by order dated 27.12.2016 rejected the said Petition Page 3 of 14 filed by the Petitioner on the plea that the Petitioner neither file Written Statement nor any Medical Certificate justifying his absence on 03.04.2014. Further, the said Petition was also rejected showing the reason that the case is ripe for argument and hence such Petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. cannot be accepted. 4. The said order has been assailed on the ground that the Court below committed grave illegality with material irregularity in holding that, no Written Statement has been filed by the Petitioner, though the same was filed along with the Petition to recall the ex-parte order dated 03.04.2014 and to accept the said Written Statement. The said order has also been assailed on the ground that the Court below failed to appreciate the reported judgment cited by the Petitioner in support of his prayer made in the said Petition filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the C.P.C., 1908. It has also been averred that the Court below, earlier in course of the proceeding, set aside the ex-parte order passed against the Opposite Party No.5 and accepted the Written Statement filed by the said Opposite Party No.5 on the ground that the same could not be filed earlier due to alleged unavoidable circumstances. A stand has also been taken in the Writ Petition that in view of Page 4 of 14 misleading stand of the Opposite Party No.5 (Insurance Company) taken before the Court below about Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle, the Court below failed to appreciate that there cannot be due and proper adjudication of the lis in absence of the Petitioner, who is the owner of the offending vehicle and the Court below ought to have set aside the ex-parte order vide which the Petitioner was set ex-parte, giving him opportunity to contest the claim in the interest of justice. A stand has also been taken in the Writ Petition that unless an appropriate order is passed by this Court setting aside the impugned order passed by the Court below, the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 passed in M.A.C. No.64