[2026:RJ-JP:11624]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4829/2025 President, Ramdas Trust, Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.

----Petitioner-Defendant No. 4 Versus

1 Norat Mal S/o Nanda, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.

Respondent-Plaintiff

2 Chandmal S/o Nanda, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.

3 Shravani D/o Nanda, R/o Diggi, Presently R/o Pandraheda, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk

4 Birdi Devi D/o Nanda W/o Ramlal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Diggi Presently R/o Near Surajpole Gate, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi, District Ajmer.

5 Secretary, Ramdas Trust, Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.

----Respondents-defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashrut Sethi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Verma Mr. Ankit Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

18/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Malpura, District Tonk, in Civil Suit No. 95/2014, whereby the application filed by petitioner-defendant No. 4 under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant No. 4 had filed an application on 01.11.2021 stating therein that, for certain reasons, he could not appear before the Court on 14.10.2014, as a result of which ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the facts of the case, rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2024. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order be quashed and set aside, and the ex-parte proceedings initiated on

14.10.2014 be recalled.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner-defendant No. 4 has not raised any objection with regard to service of summons. Rather, the only contention raised is that he could not appear on 14.10.2014 for certain unspecified reasons, but no sufficient cause has been assigned in the application. He further submits that it is not even the case of the petitioner that he was not served.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that if the petitioner was unable to appear on 14.10.2014 for any valid reason, the application ought to have been filed without undue delay. However, the application was filed after an inordinate delay of about seven years, i.e., on 01.11.2021. He also submits that by that time, the matter has reached the stage of evidence.

6. He further contends that in the absence of sufficient cause for non-appearance on 14.10.2014, the ex-parte proceedings cannot be set aside. However, the petitioner was always at liberty to participate in the proceedings at a later stage. It is also pointed out that from 14.10.2014 till 01.11.2021, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 did not participate in the proceedings at all, which reflects gross negligence on his part.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. This Court finds that the suit was instituted in the year 2014 and notices were duly served on the defendants. On 10.10.2014, the defendant was not present, and the matter was thereafter listed on 14.10.2014. On that date as well, the petitioner failed to appear, resulting in ex-parte proceedings being initiated against him. Despite having knowledge of the proceedings, the petitioner did not participate in the trial for a period of approximately seven years. It is only when the matter had reached the stage of evidence that the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed. This Court finds that the said application lacks bonafides and does not disclose any sufficient cause for the petitioner’s prolonged non-appearance.

9. Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the impugned order warranting interference under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. With the afor