Chhattisgarh HC Lets 3 Defendants Contest Raipur Land-Title Suit After Their Next-Hearing Appearance, Citing Counsel Miscommunication

The petitioners, defendants in a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent and mandatory injunction, were proceeded ex parte on 28 July 2025 after they failed to appear.

The suit was next listed on 20 August 2025, when they appeared and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

That application was withdrawn and a fresh application was filed on 18 September 2025.

The trial court rejected it on 14 January 2026, finding that it had been filed after about 48 days and that the petitioners had not given a plausible reason for their absence.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order 9 Rule 7 CPC permits a defendant, at or before the adjourned hearing, to appear and assign good cause for previous non-appearance; if the court accepts the explanation, the defendant may be heard as if present on the date fixed for appearance.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may correct an error in the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

The Court also relied on Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788, for the principle that an innocent litigant should not suffer injustice solely because of a default by their advocate.

The record showed that the petitioners appeared on 20 August 2025—the next date fixed after the ex parte order—and filed an Order 9 Rule 7 application.

Although that application was later withdrawn and refiled on 18 September, the Court treated their appearance and application on the next hearing date as relevant to the rule’s requirements.

The petitioners attributed their absence to a junior counsel’s failure to provide the court with correct information about them, describing it as a bona fide mistake.

Applying Rafiq, the Court held that the explanation was sufficient and that the petitioners had not failed to show plausible cause.

The trial court therefore erred in rejecting the application.

The petitioners were permitted to participate in the suit in accordance with law; the parties were expected to cooperate in its expeditious disposal and avoid unnecessary adjournments.