3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 submits that aforesaid civil suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is pending consideration before the trial Court, wherein relief of declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and recovery of amount has been sought. He would further submit that, personal service of notice was never made to the petitioner/defendant No. 1, rather, he was served notice through paper publication. The petitioner is resident of Ranchi, Jharkhand, and the said notice was published in the newspaper having circulation in Raipur and not in Ranchi, therefore, he could not know about paper publication, therefore, vide order dated 22-8-2018 (in some order sheets, it is mentioned as ‘22-22018’), ex-parte proceeding was initiated by the learned trial Court against petitioner/defendant No. 1. The petitioner came to know about the proceeding through the owner of adjacent land, who informed him that, the plaintiff is trying to sell his suit land, then he came to Raipur and on 7-6-2023 he filed application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order and received the same on 13-6-2023. He would further submit that, petitioner came to know first time about the impugned order in the month of June, 2023, then, immediately after obtaining certified copy of impugned order, he filed application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It is further submitted that, it is settled proposition of law that, opportunity of a party to lead evidence ought not be closed on trivial issues, as the said provision
