ROHIT BAHADUR SINGH Vs. RAGHUNATH MISHRA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rairakhol in C.S.No.4/2004/33/2011, whereby and where under the learned trial court rejected the application of defendant No. 2 under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 8.1.2007.

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction impleading the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 as defendants. The petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the suit. He was set ex parte. When the suit was posted for judgment, at this juncture, he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. praying inter alia to set aside the ex parte order dated 8.1.2007. The plaintiff filed objection to the same. The learned trial court rejected the same on the ground that no good cause has been assigned by defendant No. 2. Held so, the learned trial court dismissed the petition.

(3.) Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. Udgata, learned Advocate for opposite party No. 1. The question does arise as to whether application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. is maintainable after closure of the evidence when the suit is posted for judgment?