[2026:RJ-JP:1023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 181/2026 Nagar Nigam Bharatpur, Through Commissioner, Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Chandramani Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Bharatpur Picture Palace, Kumher Gate, P.s.

Kotwali, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

12/01/2026

1. Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat appears as a caveator.

2. With the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by Civil Judge, Bharatpur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 26.05.2025. Notices were issued for

30.06.2025.

5. On 30.06.2025, ex parte proceedings were initiated due to the non-appearance of the defendant-petitioner, and the matter was ordered to be listed on 24.07.2025.

6. It transpires from the record that due to abstaining of work by the employees of the Court, the matter was not taken up on

24.07.2025.

7. Thereafter, the matter was taken on 02.08.2025. On the said date, an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a strike in the courts below, as would be evident from the suit itself, which has been filed by the plaintiff in person.

9. He further submits that as there were changes in the advocates of the Department; therefore, the petitioner could not contact the advocate, resulting in ex parte proceedings being initiated on the first date of hearing, i.e., 30.06.2025.

10. He further submits that immediately, on the very next date, an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed, which, without due consideration on the merits of the case, has been rejected by the trial Court.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no bona fide reason for non-appearance on 30.06.2025, and the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC has rightly been rejected.

12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

13. Perused the material evidence available on record. This Court finds that the suit was filed on 26.05.2025, and first date of hearing was fixed for 30.06.2025.

14. On the very first date i.e. 30.06.2025, ex parte proceedings were initiated, and on the next date itself, i.e., 02.08.2025, when the matter was taken up by the Trial Court, an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed.

15. It is reflected from the order-sheet that even a period of 90 days’ had not expired prior to the filing of the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed.

16. It is a settled principle of law that a person cannot be made to suffer on the proceedings being initiated ex parte for the entire suit. If a party does not appear on the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, he cannot be stopped from participating in further proceedings merely on the fact that he did not appear on the first or some other hearing. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a Three- Judge Bench case of Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar and Ors.; AIR 1964 SC 993 discussed the above position of law and held as under :

33. ……

The entirety of the evidence of the plaintiff might not be concluded on the hearing day on which the defendant is absent and something might remain so far as the trial of the suit is concerned for which purpose there might be a hearing on an adjourned date.

On the terms of O. IX, r. 7 if the defendant appears on such adjourned date and satisfies the Court by showing good cause for his non-appearance on the previous day or days he might have the earlier proceedings recalled - "set the clock back" and have the suit heard in his presence. On the