Article 227 jurisdiction cannot reassess discretionary refusal to set aside ex parte proceedings absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 07.08.2026 by which the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu dismissed its applications for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex parte proceedings initiated on 15.03.2022.

The petitioner had engaged Advocate Mustafa Bhatti, who filed his Vakalatnama on 23.03.2021. However, the petitioner failed to file its written statement despite repeated opportunities, and its right to file the written statement was closed on 20.09.2021 in the presence of its counsel.

The petitioner’s counsel subsequently remained absent on several dates, resulting in the petitioner being proceeded against ex parte on 15.03.2022.

The petitioner claimed that it discovered the status of the proceedings during an internal review on 10.12.2024, obtained knowledge of the ex parte order on 19.12.2024, received certified copies on 31.12.2024, and filed applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC on 18.01.2025.

The trial court rejected the applications, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient cause and bona fide diligence.

1. Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient and cogent cause for the delay in seeking recall of the ex parte proceedings under Order IX Rule 7 CPC.

2. Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s applications disclosed patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order IX Rule 7 CPC permits a defendant against whom proceedings have been continued ex parte to seek permission to participate in the proceedings upon showing good cause for previous non-appearance. Although no specific period of limitation is prescribed for such an application before conclusion of the proceedings, the applicant must satisfactorily explain the delay and establish sufficient cause and bona fide conduct.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction on the High Court; interference is justified only where the subordinate court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, committed patent illegality, acted perversely, or caused a manifest failure of justice. Relying on Garment Craft (S) v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 INSC 37, and Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, the Court held that it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual conclusions merely because another view is possible.

The Court held that the absence of a prescribed limitation period did not entitle the petitioner to approach the trial court at any time without explaining its prolonged inaction.

The record showed that counsel had entered appearance but failed to file the written statement despite repeated opportunities, resulting in closure of the petitioner’s right on 20.09.2021.

The petitioner also remained inactive after its right was closed, and its counsel was absent on multiple subsequent dates before the ex parte order was passed on 15.03.2022.

The application was filed almost three years later, and the explanation attributing the default to counsel was not accepted by the trial court.

Since the trial court’s findings were based on the record and were neither arbitrary nor perverse, the High Court found no ground for supervisory interference under Article 227.

Finding no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice in the order dated 07.08.2026, the Court dismissed the petition and the connected applications.