Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Typically, it allows a party to seek relief from a judgment passed ex parte, especially when the party was not properly served or did not appear due to sufficient cause SRI. D. SHAMBAIAH vs SRI.K. NARAYANA REDDY - Karnataka.
Application of Order 9 Rule 7 in specific cases:
In some cases, courts have allowed applications under Order 9 Rule 7 for restoration of cases or setting aside ex parte orders, provided the applicant demonstrates valid reasons, such as non-appearance or procedural lapses INDHCHH00000004073, SRI. D. SHAMBAIAH vs SRI.K. NARAYANA REDDY - Karnataka.
Relation to other Orders and Rules:
The application of Order 9 Rule 7 is often considered alongside provisions under Section 151 CPC for necessary reliefs SATANAND AGRAWAL Vs SMT. MANJU AGRAWAL - Chhattisgarh.
Additional insights:
Analysis and Conclusion:Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC provides a mechanism for parties to seek restoration or relief from ex parte judgments or decrees, emphasizing the importance of showing valid reasons for non-appearance. Courts have exercised this rule flexibly, often considering applications for setting aside ex parte orders when procedural irregularities or genuine causes are demonstrated. Its application is closely linked with other provisions like Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC, ensuring procedural fairness. Overall, Order 9 Rule 7 is a vital procedural tool to prevent miscarriage of justice due to procedural lapses or inadvertent non-appearance SRI. D. SHAMBAIAH vs SRI.K. NARAYANA REDDY - Karnataka, INDHCHH00000004073.
References:- BAKHAL RAMCHIYARI vs THE ROYAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BHUTAN AND 2 ORS. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 2663 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 2663- SATANAND AGRAWAL Vs SMT. MANJU AGRAWAL - Chhattisgarh- M VEERESH S/O M BASAVARAJ Vs R BHARATHI W/O DASARATH SINGH - Karnataka_HC_KAHC020067402012- POOJA SHARMA vs PRATEEK SHARMA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 11608 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 11608- SRI. D. SHAMBAIAH vs SRI.K. NARAYANA REDDY - Karnataka
In civil litigation, missing a court hearing can lead to serious consequences, such as ex parte proceedings where the case proceeds without you. But what if you have a valid reason for your absence? This is where Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 comes into play. A common query from litigants is: Order 9 Rule 7 what about under CPC? This post breaks down its scope, application, judicial interpretations, and practical insights to help you understand this vital provision.
Whether you're a defendant facing an ex parte order or simply navigating CPC procedures, this guide provides clarity—but remember, this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Order IX Rule 7 CPC addresses situations where a court has adjourned a suit for ex parte hearing due to the defendant's non-appearance. If the defendant appears at or before the adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for the previous absence, the court may allow them to participate in the proceedings.
The provision states: Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.[
#Order9Rule7CPC, #ExParteRelief, #CPCLaw
It is very strange as to why an application under Order 9Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed in the first instance, when the MAC Case No. 2235/2013was not dismissed at all, but it was only filed till the appearance of the claimant. ... 7. ... 4of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with an application for substitution of the claimant by the present petitioner. ... meanwhile, the wife of the petition....
They also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, which was allowed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the impugned ordeer. 3. ... The appeal is preferred against order dated 17.5.2022 passed by Fourth Upper District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.29A/2022, whereby application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedu....
Kusum w/o Dashrath Unde. ... 7. ... We do not fnd any error apparent on the face of the record or any of the conditions set forth in order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil VERSUS KUSUM DASHRATH UNDE ... The State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, this Court allowed the writ petition
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-13), DISMISSING PETITION FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED ALSO R/AT NO.141/7/
On going 8 through the records, I would find that learned Judge has mechanically allowed the petition filed under order 9Rule 13 of CPC. ... 4 7. ... The learned Judge was of the view that by adopting hyper technical view, petition filed under 9 rule 13 of CPC cannot be rejected. ... It was only on 30.08.2008, when her neighbourer informed that there is exparte decree, she visited the lawye....
No.180068 of 2025 is allowed and the Transfer Petition stands disposed of in terms of signed ordeer. 2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ... 7. In view of the above facts, I.A. No.180068 of 2025 is allowed and the Transfer Petition stands disposed of.
In addition to the same, the order sheet of the trial court would also reflect that permission granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. does not find place in the ordeer sheet.
In addition to the same, the order sheet of the trial court would also reflect that permission granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. does not find place in the ordeer sheet.
Office note as to action (if arny) taken on Ordeer Date of SI N of O
No.7064 of 2021:- This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed unde order 9 to 9 and section 115 of C.P.C. to restore the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. ... No.1522 of 2014:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 07/04/2014 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2012 on the file
Application under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(b) of the CPC: 168 Mumbai Suburban District held on 21st October, 2019 is null and void and also seeks declaration that he be declared, as elected.
Deva immediately went to bring Chatra's wife from her parental house. Ramesh immediately went to the house of Chatra and found said Navu lying dead. Ramesh immediately went to call his maternal unde Deva and told him about the incident. In the same night, Ramesh, Deva and Chatra's wife - Smt.
Thereafter, the appellants filed applications under Order 9Rule 9 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, to restore the Arbitration original petitions which were dismissed for default on 13.10.2004. When the matters were taken up in the evening, learned counsel for the appellants was absent, and therefore the Arbitration original petitions were dismissed for default. T. I. Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Networks Ltd. I. T. I. Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communicatio....
7. Section 92(1) of the CPC, being relevant, is extracted hereunder: - 92. Public charities- (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or whether the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, wheth....
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, contended that when a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court, the appellant was allowed time to deposit the whole of the decretal amount by a specific date, namely by March 23, 1976 but the appellant did not do so and, consequently, the property was auction-sold. It is contended that after rejection of the objections under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C., the Executing Court was bound to confirm the sale and since the sale was confirme....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
