[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bandhu Oraon vs Muni Devi on 4 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:36486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 964 of 2025
1. Bandhu Oraon, aged about 40 years,
2. Bhola Oraon, aged about 36 years,
3. Mahadeo Oraon, aged about 33 years,
4. Sunil Oraon @ Sunil Minz, aged about 27 years,
All son of Late Moso Oraon
All are resident of Village- Hundru Tola, Khokhma Toli, Airport Road, Hinoo,
P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Now Airport, Dist-Ranchi, State -Jharkhand
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Muni Devi, wife of Late Mahali Oraon.
2. Pankaj Kachhap, Son of Late Mahali Oraon
3. Vikram Kachhap, Son of Late Mahali Oraon
All R/o village- Hundru, Tola Khaokhma Toli, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Now
Airport, District Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner Ranchi having office at court Compound Ranchi,
P.O- G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, Distt-Ranchi
5. Bhawa Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon
6. Ramu Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon
7. Muna Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon
8. Sudhir Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon
9. Basant Kachhap, Son of Late Bhukhla Oraon,
10. Anil Kachhap, Son of Late Bhukhla Oraon,
11. Sunita Kachhap wife of Late Raju Kachhap
12. Niraj kachhap Son of Late Raju Kachhap,
13. Nishu Kachhap, Son of Late Raju Kachhap,
Respondent No. 12 and 13 Both are minors represent through his mother and
natural guardian and next friend Respondent No. 11, Respondent No.
5 to 13 all are resident of Village -Hundru, Tola. Khokhma Toli, P.O. Hinoo,
P.S. Doranda now Airport, Distt-Ranchi, State Jharkhand,
14. Arjun Oraon, Son of Late Jhari Oraon,
15. Rajesh Kachhap, Son of Late Putul Kachhap,
16. Birsha Oraon, Son of Late Charwa Oraon,
17. Donka Oraon, Son of Late Charwa Oraon,
18. Mahadeo Kachhap, Son of Late Nathu Oraon,
19. Gudul Kachhap, Son of Late Nathu Oraon, Respondent No. 14 to 19 all are
resident of village Hundru, Tola, Pokhar Toli, P.S. Doranda, now Airport, P.O.
Hinoo, Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand,
20. Dema Oraon son of Late Mahadeo Oraon,
21. Chotu Kachhap son of Late Mukesh Kachhap,
22. Guddu Kachhap Son of Late Panda Oraon, Respondent No. 20 to 22 all are
resident of village Hundru, Tola, Pokhar Toli, P.S. Doranda, now Airport, P.O.
Hinoo, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
23. Jugu Kachhap @ Bandhana, S/o Late Panda Oraon, R/o village Hundru,
P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, now Airport, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand
24. Amrit Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap
25.Martin Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap
26. Mangal Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap
27.Jeotitara Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap
28. Amar Aliser Kachhap, son of Late Lukas Kachhap,
2025:JHHC:36486
29.Francies Kachhap Son of Late Mansid Kachhap,
30. Roshan Pradeep Kachhap, Son of Late Dular Kachhap
31.Bijay Kachhap, Son of Late Dular Kachhap
32.Antoni Kachhap, Son of Late Dular Kachhap
33. Albart Kachhap, Son of Late Sundar Kachhap
34.Joseph Kachhap, Son of Late Manu Kachhap
35. Debit Kachhap, Son of Late Manu Kachhap
36. Jorg Kachhap, Son of Late Manu Kachhap,
Respondent No. 24 to 36 all are resident of village Hundru, Tola, Pokhar Toli,
P.s. Doranda, now Airport, P.O. Hinoo, Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand,
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Avnish Kumar Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aswini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
------
Order No. 06 / Dated : 04.12.2025.
1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed
to set aside the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 68/2020
by which the ex-parte proceeding was drawn against all the defendants was
recalled under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC by the impugned order dated
09.07.2025.
2. In order to appreciate the facts of the case at hand, the list of dates is extracted
below: -
I. 26.02.2020- The suit was filed.
II. 08.06.2022- Three notices issued on defendant no. 12, 15 and 18
returned unserved.
III. 29.06.2022- Registered notice issued on defendant no. 32 returned
unserved.
IV. 16.08.2022- Service of notice upon defendant nos. 1 to 9, 11,13 to
22, 24, 25, 27 to 32 and 34 is declared to be validly served and
substituted service of notice effected by way of paper publication
against remaining all the defendants.
V. 25.01.2023- An ex-parte proceeding drawn against defendant nos.
1 to 9, 11, 13 to 22, 24, 25, 27 to 32 and 34.
2025:JHHC:36486
VI. 21.02.2023- ex-parte proceeding drawn against defendant nos. 10,
12, 23, 26 and 33 and on further dates three witnesses were
examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and the relevant documents
were adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.1 to 10.
VII. 21.09.2023- Evidence of the plaintiff was closed.
VIII. 13.10.2023- Fixed for argument.
IX. 06.01.2025- Argument was concluded and the case was posted for
argument/ judgment on 05.02.2025.
X. 06.02.2025- The judgment was reserved.
3. On 24.02.2025 the petition under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of
the CPC filed by the defendant nos. 10(b) and 10(c) which has been allowed
and aggrieved by the order the instant civil misc. petition has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs/ petitioners
that once a case is reserved for judgment, the ex-parte proceeding cannot be
recalled under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties that there
was sufficient cause for non-appearance as notice was not duly served on
them and the proceeding was drawn behind the back.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the
short question falls for consideration before this Court is whether an ex-parte
proceeding can be recalled under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC after the
proceeding has concluded and the case is posted for judgment.
7. This Court is of the view that once the ex-parte proceeding is concluded,
argument is heard and the case is posted for judgment, the Court concerned
has no power to exercise its jurisdiction under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC
to recall the order.
8. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and civil
miscellaneous petition is allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
Uploaded
06.12.2025
