Dismissed¶32

Sachin Garg v. Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2026CR/4120/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CR-4120-2026; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; decided 15.05.2026; Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.; Sachin Garg v. Sunanda Greentech and Others; Article 227 revision; Order IX Rule 7 CPC; setting aside ex parte proceedings dated 17.11.2025; order dated 09.04.2026 by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sangrur affirmed; sufficient cause; procedural rules handmaids of justice; witnesses already examined no absolute bar; no written reply filed; costs imposed; suit for declaration and mandatory injunction re leased showroom, Mehla Road, Sangrur; lease deed dated 24.06.2024; petition dismissed without merits comment.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed without commenting on the merits, and pending application(s) disposed of accordingly. ¶32

Sachin Garg Vs Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed without commenting on the merits, and pending application(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court committed any material error in allowing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC.

¶27

Court's answer

Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and are not to be construed in a manner that forecloses adjudication on merits, particularly where denial of participation may result in serious civil consequences.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The object of Order IX Rule 7 CPC is to afford an opportunity to a party who had earlier remained absent to participate in the proceedings upon showing sufficient cause.

¶27

Key takeaways

Merely because certain witnesses had been examined does not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar against permitting respondent No.3 to participate in the proceedings and contest the suit, since the suit had not reached final adjudication.ratio¶27
The contention regarding inconsistent stands allegedly taken by respondent No.3 in collateral proceedings does not persuade the Court to interfere; such aspects relate to appreciation of conduct and merits of the defence and are to be considered by the trial court at the stage of adjudication of the suit.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh — CR-4120-2026, decided 15.05.2026 (Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.). Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09.04.2026 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, allowing respondent No.3's application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the ex parte proceedings of 17.11.2025, subject to costs. Held: procedural rules are handmaids of justice and must not foreclose adjudication on merits; the object of Order IX Rule 7 CPC is to enable a party absent earlier to participate upon showing sufficient cause; examination of certain witnesses at the part-heard stage is no absolute bar to readmitting the defendant; the plaintiff had filed no written reply to the application; allegations of inconsistent stands in collateral proceedings are for the trial court at adjudication. Revision petition dismissed without commenting on the merits; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

CR-4120-2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(115)

¶4

CR-4120-2026 Date of Decision:-15.05.2026

Sachin Garg

……Petitioner

Versus

Sunanda Greentech and Others

¶9

……Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, whereby the application filed by respondent No.3 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2025, proceeding against him ex parte, has been allowed.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants with regard to a commercial showroom/building situated on Mehla Road, Sangrur, which had been leased to the respondents vide lease deed dated 24.06.2024. During pendency of the suit, the defendants initially appeared through counsel on 25.09.2025, but subsequently failed to pursue the matter and on 17.11.2025,

¶17

-1-

¶18

SHUBHAM 2026.05.19 15:38 I am the author of this document

¶19

CR-4120-2026

¶20

respondents/defendants was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner led evidence and examined witnesses in support of his case. Subsequently, respondent No.3 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings on the ground that he had not been informed by his counsel regarding the next date of hearing. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 09.04.2026, allowed the said application and permitted respondent No.3 to rejoin the proceedings subject to payment of costs. Hence, the present petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court committed a material illegality in allowing the application at a highly belated stage after substantial evidence had already been led by the petitioner. It has been argued that respondent No.3 had initially appeared through counsel but thereafter deliberately stopped appearing before the Court and was rightly proceeded against ex parte on 17.11.2025. It is further submitted that the explanation furnished by respondent No.3 that his counsel failed to inform him regarding the next date of hearing is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause for allowing the said application. Learned counsel further contends that after the ex parte order was passed, the petitioner had already examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and the matter had substantially progressed. Therefore, allowing respondent No.3 to reenter the proceedings at such a stage has caused prejudice to the petitioner and has unnecessarily delayed adjudication of the suit.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book.

¶23

-2-

¶24

SHUBHAM 2026.05.19 15:38 I am the author of this document

¶25

CR-4120-2026

¶26

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondents as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to the respondent.

¶27

The principal question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned trial Court committed any material error in allowing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that while allowing the application, the learned trial Court observed that an opportunity ought ordinarily to be afforded to a party to contest the matter on merits and that procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it. In pursuance thereof, costs were also imposed upon respondent No.3. It is a settled proposition of law that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and are not to be construed in a manner that foreclose adjudication on merits, particularly where denial of participation may result in serious civil consequences. The object of Order IX Rule 7 CPC is to afford an opportunity to a party, who had earlier remained absent, to participate in the proceedings upon showing sufficient cause. Though the petitioner has argued that the proceedings had substantially progressed, it cannot be ignored that the suit itself had not reached the stage of final adjudication. Merely because certain witnesses had been examined would not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar against permitting respondent No.3 to participate in the proceedings and contest the suit. The impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court allowed the said application after considering the facts and circumstances of the matter. The contention raised regarding inconsistent stands allegedly taken by respondent No.3 in collateral

¶28

-3-

¶29

SHUBHAM 2026.05.19 15:38 I am the author of this document

¶30

CR-4120-2026

¶31

proceedings also does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. Such aspects relate to appreciation of conduct and merits of the defence and can appropriately be considered by the learned trial Court at the stage of adjudication of the suit. It is further borne out from the record that upon filing of the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, the petitioner/plaintiff did not file any written reply controverting the averments made therein and merely opposed the application during the course of arguments before the learned trial Court. Thus, the learned trial Court proceeded to consider the application on the basis of the material available on record and the submissions advanced before it.

¶32