Allowed¶68

Bandhu Oraon v. Muni Devi

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2025C.M.P./964/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of ex-parte proceedings barred once proceedings concluded and judgment reserved/posted - Order IX Rule 7 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Original Suit No. 68/2020; defendant nos. 10(b) and 10(c); ex-parte order dated 09.07.2025 set aside; C.M.P. No. 964 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Gautam Kumar Choudhary; Order No. 06 dated 04.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.07.2025 (recalling the ex-parte proceedings in Original Suit No. 68/2020) set aside; civil miscellaneous petition allowed; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶68

Bandhu Oraon Vs Muni Devi — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:36486

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 964 of 2025

¶3

Bandhu Oraon, aged about 40 years,

¶4

Bhola Oraon, aged about 36 years,

¶5

Mahadeo Oraon, aged about 33 years,

¶6

Sunil Oraon @ Sunil Minz, aged about 27 years,

¶7

All son of Late Moso Oraon

¶8

All are resident of Village- Hundru Tola, Khokhma Toli, Airport Road, Hinoo, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Now Airport, Dist-Ranchi, State -Jharkhand

¶9

..... .... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Muni Devi, wife of Late Mahali Oraon.

¶12

Pankaj Kachhap, Son of Late Mahali Oraon

¶13

Vikram Kachhap, Son of Late Mahali Oraon

¶14

All R/o village- Hundru, Tola Khaokhma Toli, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Now Airport, District Ranchi

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner Ranchi having office at court Compound Ranchi, P.O- G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, Distt-Ranchi

¶16

Bhawa Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon

¶17

Ramu Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon

¶18

Muna Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon

¶19

Sudhir Oraon, Son of Late Bhola Oraon

¶20

Basant Kachhap, Son of Late Bhukhla Oraon,

¶21

Anil Kachhap, Son of Late Bhukhla Oraon,

¶22

Sunita Kachhap wife of Late Raju Kachhap

¶23

Niraj kachhap Son of Late Raju Kachhap,

¶24

Nishu Kachhap, Son of Late Raju Kachhap, Respondent No. 12 and 13 Both are minors represent through his mother and natural guardian and next friend Respondent No. 11, Respondent No.

¶25

5 to 13 all are resident of Village -Hundru, Tola. Khokhma Toli, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda now Airport, Distt-Ranchi, State Jharkhand,

¶26

Arjun Oraon, Son of Late Jhari Oraon,

¶27

Rajesh Kachhap, Son of Late Putul Kachhap,

¶28

Birsha Oraon, Son of Late Charwa Oraon,

¶29

Donka Oraon, Son of Late Charwa Oraon,

¶30

Mahadeo Kachhap, Son of Late Nathu Oraon,

¶31

Gudul Kachhap, Son of Late Nathu Oraon, Respondent No. 14 to 19 all are resident of village Hundru, Tola, Pokhar Toli, P.S. Doranda, now Airport, P.O. Hinoo, Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand,

¶32

Dema Oraon son of Late Mahadeo Oraon,

¶33

Chotu Kachhap son of Late Mukesh Kachhap,

¶34

Guddu Kachhap Son of Late Panda Oraon, Respondent No. 20 to 22 all are resident of village Hundru, Tola, Pokhar Toli, P.S. Doranda, now Airport, P.O. Hinoo, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶35

Jugu Kachhap @ Bandhana, S/o Late Panda Oraon, R/o village Hundru, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, now Airport, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶36

Amrit Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap

¶37

25.Martin Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap

¶38

Mangal Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap

¶39

27.Jeotitara Kachhap, Son of Late Lukas Kachhap

¶40

Amar Aliser Kachhap, son of Late Lukas Kachhap,

¶41

2025:JHHC:36486

¶42

29.Francies Kachhap Son of Late Mansid Kachhap,

¶43

Roshan Pradeep Kachhap, Son of Late Dular Kachhap 31.Bijay Kachhap, Son of Late Dular Kachhap 32.Antoni Kachhap, Son of Late Dular Kachhap

¶44

Albart Kachhap, Son of Late Sundar Kachhap 34.Joseph Kachhap, Son of Late Manu Kachhap

¶45

Debit Kachhap, Son of Late Manu Kachhap 36. Jorg Kachhap, Son of Late Manu Kachhap, Respondent No. 24 to 36 all are resident of village Hundru, Tola, Pokhar Toli, P.s. Doranda, now Airport, P.O. Hinoo, Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand,

¶46

… …. Opposite Parties

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶48

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate Mr. Avnish Kumar Pathak, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aswini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II ------

¶49

Order No. 06 / Dated : 04.12.2025.

¶50

Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 68/2020 by which the ex-parte proceeding was drawn against all the defendants was recalled under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC by the impugned order dated 09.07.2025.

¶51

In order to appreciate the facts of the case at hand, the list of dates is extracted

¶52

below: -

¶53

I. 26.02.2020- The suit was filed.

¶54

II. 08.06.2022- Three notices issued on defendant no. 12, 15 and 18 returned unserved.

¶55

III. 29.06.2022- Registered notice issued on defendant no. 32 returned unserved.

¶56

IV. 16.08.2022- Service of notice upon defendant nos. 1 to 9, 11,13 to 22, 24, 25, 27 to 32 and 34 is declared to be validly served and substituted service of notice effected by way of paper publication against remaining all the defendants.

¶57

V. 25.01.2023- An ex-parte proceeding drawn against defendant nos. 1 to 9, 11, 13 to 22, 24, 25, 27 to 32 and 34.

¶58

2025:JHHC:36486

¶59

VI. 21.02.2023- ex-parte proceeding drawn against defendant nos. 10, 12, 23, 26 and 33 and on further dates three witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and the relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.1 to 10.

¶60

VII. 21.09.2023- Evidence of the plaintiff was closed. VIII. 13.10.2023- Fixed for argument.

¶61

IX. 06.01.2025- Argument was concluded and the case was posted for argument/ judgment on 05.02.2025.

¶62

X. 06.02.2025- The judgment was reserved.

¶63

On 24.02.2025 the petition under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the defendant nos. 10(b) and 10(c) which has been allowed and aggrieved by the order the instant civil misc. petition has been filed.

¶64

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs/ petitioners that once a case is reserved for judgment, the ex-parte proceeding cannot be recalled under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC.

¶65

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance as notice was not duly served on them and the proceeding was drawn behind the back.

¶66

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the short question falls for consideration before this Court is whether an ex-parte proceeding can be recalled under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC after the proceeding has concluded and the case is posted for judgment.

¶67

This Court is of the view that once the ex-parte proceeding is concluded, argument is heard and the case is posted for judgment, the Court concerned has no power to exercise its jurisdiction under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC to recall the order.

¶68

Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and civil miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶69

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶70

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶71

Pawan / - Uploaded 06.12.2025

Bandhu Oraon v. Muni Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandhu Oraon v. Muni Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Devi Vs Ranthi Khariyain

National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Vs Sampa Mandal

National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Vs Smt Aloka Nanda Sarkar

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Zeenat Yasmin

Dharmadeo Ray Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Sunil Kumar Vs Manoj Kumar