Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rajdeep Kapoor vs Santosh Jhothe on 26 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14907
1 MA-3263-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 26 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 3263 of 2024
DR. RAJDEEP KAPOOR
Versus
SANTOSH JHOTHE
Appearance:
Shri Devraj Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
Appellant has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal being aggrieved of order
dated 06.04.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 5th Additional District Judge,
Bhopal in MJC No.181/2023 refusing to show indulgence in an application filed
under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC after recording a categorical
finding in paragraph 11 of the said order, that case was listed on 05.02.2020 when
his counsel Shri Shafiq was present, he had sought time to file written statement.
Thereafter, on account of outbreak of COVID 19 Pandemic date was fixed as
26.02.2021 and, thereafter on 07.04.2021, 11.11.2021, 06.01.2022, 10.02. 2022,
22.04.2022 and, on 22.04.2022, learned counsel for the appellant sought time to
file written statement, next date was fixed as 11.05.2022, but on 11.05.2022
neither the counsel appeared nor written statement was filed and, therefore, ex-
parte proceedings were drawn.
Shri Devraj Vishwakarma submits that appellant is a Doctor, he is running
a nursing home and there were guidelines to attend each and every patient,
therefore, he could not appear in Court personally.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14907
2 MA-3263-2024
When Shri Devraj Vishwakarma is requested to show from the record those
guidelines of the State in regard to treatment of patients without attending the case
in Court even in the month of April and May, 2022, then he fairly admits that no
such guidelines have been brought on record by him. Thus, in absence of such
guidelines, oral submissions made by Shri Devraj Vishwakarma which is contrary
to the material available on record cannot be accepted.
When impugned order is examined, then there is no sufficient cause for the
appellant to get the ex-parte judgment and decree set aside. Impugned order
having been passed in furtherance of and in the interest of justice does not call for
any interference in this miscellaneous appeal. Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
At this stage, Shri Devraj Vishwakarma places reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court in Nanda Dulal Pradhan and Another Vs. Dibakar Pradhan and
Another [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579], wherein the ratio of law is that on setting aside
the ex-parte judgment and decree though the defendants who had not filed the
written statement, can be permitted to participate in the suit and cross-examine the
witness and submits that atleast that should have been done, however, the fact is
that when there are no cogent grounds for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and
decree, then ratio of this judgment will have no application to the facts and
circumstances of the case. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MTK
