Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bheekam Singh Jat vs Ramesh Vadhwani on 18 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18064
1 MP-7219-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 7219 of 2023
BHEEKAM SINGH JAT
Versus
RAMESH VADHWANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shatru Daman Singh Bhadouriyia - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra- Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya- Government Advocate for respondent No.2-
State.
ORDER
The present misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 10th
of October, 2023 passed by First District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior
affirming the order dated 19th of January, 2023 passed by First Civil Judge,
Class-I, Senior Division, Dabra, District Gwalior whereby the application
filed by petitioner- defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside
the ex parte judgment dated 11-01-2022 passed by trial Court in favour of
plaintiff/respondent No.1 in Civil Suit No.125-A/2018 has been rejected.
In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1- plaintiff filed a
suit against petitioner- defendant seeking specific performance of contract
delivery of possession and permanent injunction in which, petitioner-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18064
2 MP-7219-2023
defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement. The
trial Court fixed the case for evidence after framing of issues. After
plaintiff's evidence, the case was fixed for defendant's evidence but
defendant was unable to adduce any evidence. The trial Court closed
defendant's evidence and passed ex parte judgment and decree against the
petitioner- defendant.
Being dissatisfied with ex parte judgment and decree, petitioner filed
an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the impugned
ex parte judgment and decree dated 11-01-2022 before the Court of First
Civil Judge, Class-I, Sr. Division, Dabra, District Gwalior which was
rejected vide order dated 19-01-2023 passed in Case No.04 of 2022.
Being dissatisfied, petitioner- defendant filed a Misc. Civil Appeal
No.07 of 2023 before the Court of First District Judge, Dabra, District
Gwalior but the First Appellate Court vide order dated 10-10-2023 rejected
Misc. Civil Appeal filed by petitioner-defendant. Hence, this petition.
It is contended on behalf of petitioner-defendant that when the case
was fixed by the Trial Court for 10-11-2021, petitioner had gone to in-laws
house of his younger brother at Jigniya and his advocate Shri H.V. Gupta
also met with an accident, therefore, he could not appear before the Court but
the trial Court rejected the application considering that Shri BL Kushwah and
his associates along with Shri HV Gupta, are advocates in the case. Shri B.
L. Kushwah and and his associates never appeared for pleading in the case
nor did they cross-examine any witness. Still, the learned trial Court
committed a serious mistake in rejecting the application of petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18064
3 MP-7219-2023
ignoring the record. The petitioner adduced sufficient reason for his absence
before the trial Court but the trial Court passed ex parte judgment and decree
without considering the merits of case and the first appellate Court has also
committed an error in affirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Placing
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GP
Shrivastava vs. RK Raizada and Others (2000) 3 SCC 54, it is contended that
if reason is found sufficient, then setting aside the ex parte decree must be
liberally construed.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff
opposed the contentions of petitioner and supported the impugned orders.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Perused the impugned orders and documents available on record.
On perusal of record, it is found that after plaintiff's evidence on 24-
01-2020, a date was fixed for 10-02-2020 for defendant's evidence.
Defendant did not appear before the Court for evidence on 20-01-2021, 04-
02-2021, 05-02-2021, 26-02-2021, 09-03-2021, 19-03-2021, 08-04-2021, 08-
06-2021, 10-06-2021, 05-07-2021, 28-07-2021, 11-08-2021, 27-08-2021, 24-
09-2021 due to which defendant was given last opportunity to give evidence
on 07-10-2021 with cost of Rs.400/- but defendant did not appear for
evidence on 22-10-2021. Again, case was fixed for 10-11-2021 giving last
opportunity with cost of Rs.500/-. The defendant even did not contact his
counsel after returning from Jigniya as alleged that he had gone to attend
engagement ceremony in the in-laws house of his younger brother. The
defendant became unable to produce any document regarding his absence on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18064
4 MP-7219-2023
10-11-2021 and no proper reason for his absence was produced on record in
support of application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. Under these
circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting
aside ex parte judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1
and the Appellate Court has rightly affirmed the order passed by the Trial
Court.
In view of the above, the instant misc.petition being devoid of
substance, is hereby rejected.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
