Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Singh @ Tillu Raghuvanshi vs Mohan Singh Rajput on 6 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9958
1 MP-2201-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2201 of 2025
RAVINDRA SINGH @ TILLU RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
MOHAN SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmad Quereshi - Advocate appeared for petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
preferred against the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by 4th Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Guna in MJC No.23/2024, whereby an interim application under Section
151 of CPC for stay of the execution proceedings in case no. Ex-A/20-21, was
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that
present respondents have filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, injunction
and encashment of money with respect to plot no. 35 and 36 situated at survey
no.246 in village Kushmauda, Patwari Halka Number 77 which was registered as
Civil Suit No.57A/2019 and in that suit the present petitioner was proceeded ex-
parte and a final decree was passed on 27.02.2021 and, thereafter, an execution
was filed in which notices were issued to the petitioner and by way of said notice,
the petitioner came to know that such judgment and decree has been passed
against him.
3. It is further argued that for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and
decree, the present petitioner had preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9958
2 MP-2201-2025
but on 17.08.2023, the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution and
for its restoration an application under Order 9 Rule 4 r/w Section 151 of CPC
was preferred before learned Trial Court and as respondent/plaintiff were trying to
get the judgment and decree executed with regard to possession, an application
under Section 151 of CPC was preferred, but learned Trial Court vide impugned
order has rejected the said application holding that in proceedings under Order 9
Rule 4 CPC, the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order of
injunction and to stay any proceedings, therefore, the application is not
maintainable and accordingly, it was rejected which is per se illegal.
4. Learned counsel has also argued that if the execution proceedings during
the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC is not stayed, then
great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant as he would be ousted
from the plots in question and, therefore, would frustrate his very rights. Thus, in
the interest of justice the proceedings before the Executing Court with regard to
execution of judgment and decree dated 27.02.2021 be stayed.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant had suffered a judgment and decree
with regard to declaration of title, possession, injunction and encashment of
money and as during the proceedings in the suit admittedly, the
petitioner/defendant was ex-parte for setting aside the ex-parte decree he had
moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which also got dismissed on
17.08.2023 for want of prosecution and now an application under Order 9 Rule 4
CPC is pending for restoration of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
7. Order 9 Rule 4 CPC provides that where a suit is dismissed under Rule 2
or 3 of Order 9, the plaintiff either may bring a fresh suit or may apply for an order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9958
3 MP-2201-2025
to set the dismissal aside and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient
cause for such failure or for his non-appearance, the Court can thereon pass an
order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day proceedings of the suit.
Thus, at present the petitioner/defendant has to demonstrate his non-appearance
before the Court at the time of hearing of the suit as well as at the time of hearing
of application under Order 9 Rule 13. By way of judgment and decree a right has
accrued in favor of the respondent/plaintiff and until and unless some sufficient
cause is demonstrated before the learned Trial Court for firstly restoring the
application under Order 9 Rule 13 and, thereafter, setting aside the ex-parte
judgment and decree the said right would not get extinguished. Since the
petitioner in this petition or before the Executing Court in the application under
Section 151 of CPC, could not demonstrate the same, this Court doesn't find any
reason to grant relief of injunction under Section 151 of CPC even though the
reasoning on which the application has been rejected appears to be not proper.
8. The petition being sans merit, is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
