Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/139/2026 of SURINDER SINGH Vs BAL KRISHAN AND OTHERS on 7 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM (M) No. 139/2026 in CM No. 4351/2026 Surinder Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. vs Bal Krishan and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM (M) No. 139/2026 in
CM No. 4351/2026
Surinder Singh
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
vs
Bal Krishan and others
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
07.07.2026
1. The petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of assailing the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Kathua (for short the ‘Trial Court’), in a suit titled “Surinder Singh vs. Bal Krishan and others”, whereby the learned trial court has set aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against the respondents, on the ground that there was no sufficient material before the learned trial court to pass the order impugned.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. In terms of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, when the defendant causes appearance before the court after he is set ex-parte and demonstrates good cause for his non-appearance on the previous date of hearing, the court may set-aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against him. Serial No. 145
2 CM (M) No. 139/2026
4. So far as the present case is concerned, the specific plea taken by the respondents was that they were being represented by their counsel and on account of demise of father of the counsel, he could not cause appearance before the learned trial court, when the respondents were set ex-parte. Initially there was no affidavit in support of the application, but subsequently, the affidavit was also filed by the respondents in support of the application.
5. The learned trial court considered the cause demonstrated by the respondents for their non-appearance on the date when they were set ex-parte as good cause and set aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against the respondents.
6. This Court does not find that the learned trial court has committed any jurisdictional error resulting in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, as such, the present petition is found to be misconceived and the same is accordingly disposed of, along with the connected application.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu 07.07.2026 Sahil Padha
Sahil Padha 2026.07.08 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document