JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, J.,ipur, dated 27th July, 1985, in civil suit No. x22/1983. 2. Suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the State of Rajasthan and ors. for declaration that the dismissal order is bad in law. Summons were issued to the respondents and its officers. On 24th January, 1953, ex-parte order was passed. Application for setting-aside the ex-parte order was moved by the State and it was accepted on 20th July, 19'3. Ex-pane order was set-aside and 3 months time was granted to the State to file the written statement. On 19th October, 1983, written statement was not filed, hence further time was granted to the State. On 19th November 1983. also the written statement was n-)t filed and further time was allowed. On 18th January, 1984, again the written statement was not filed and the court allowed time on the condition that Rs. 50/- will be paid to the petitioner as cost. 3. On 4th February, 1984, written statement again was not filed and further time was allowed on the condition that the State will pay Rs. 75/- as cost. On 25.2.1984, written statement was not filed and again the case was adjourned on the condition that Rs. 100/- will be paid by the State as cost. it will not be out of place here to mention that the cost awarded on 18.1,1984, 4.2.1984 and 25.2.1984, have not been paid. On 14th March, 1984, written statement was again not filed and the court directed that the proceedings should continue without filing of the written statement. Directions were given that the evidence will be recorded. On 5.5.1984, evidence was recorded. None appeared on behalf of State of Rajasthan and its officers. The case was fixed on 16.5.1984. for final arguments On 16.5.1984, the Presiding Officer, was transferred as such the arguments could not be heard. The case was adjourned on 18th August, 1984, 15th September, 1984 and 20.10.1984. On 3.11.1984. arguments were heard. The judgment was to be delivered on 5,11.1984, but it could not be delivered and the case was adjourned for 17.11.1984. It could not be delivered on 17th Nov. 1984. On 5.12.1984. an application was submitted for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that the officer was transfer. The court below vide order 27th July 1985. The judgment was to be delivered on 5,11.1984, but it could not be delivered and the case was adjourned for 17.11.1984. It could not be delivered on 17th Nov. 1984. On 5.12.1984. an application was submitted for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that the officer was transfer. The court below vide order 27th July 1985. accepted the application and directed that earlier amount of Rs. 12'/-1150/-= Rs. 275/- should be paid by the State of Rajasthan. It will not be out of place here to mention that most of the parties served in the year 1981 and all are the officers of the State. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the court below setting-aside the ex-parte order, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order on number of grounds. 5. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that State cannot be placed on a better footing than ordinary litigant. It was also submitted that undue concession extended leads to discrimination resulting in unequal treatment to his client. It was also submitted by Mr. Soni, that if undue discrimination is made between one party and the other party then the question of jurisdiction is involved in it. 6. Mr. M. Refique, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan and ors. supported the order passed by the court below and submitted that the court was justified in setting-aside the ex-parte order. He has also submitted that no question of jurisdiction is involved in it. 7. Chapter IV-A has been inserted in the Constitution of India. Article 51-A, provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, to abide by the duties cast on him. It is the duty of every citizen including the officers of the State to safeguard the property and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. Officers of the State are the citizens of the country they are equally bound to perform their duties cast on them under the law. Omission or commission in the fulfilment of the duties may attract the provisions of Article 51-A sometimes. 8. It will not be out of place here to mention that Chapter III, regarding fundamental rights is mandatory and enforceable. Chapter 1V relating to directive principles have been held to be directive in nature. Omission or commission in the fulfilment of the duties may attract the provisions of Article 51-A sometimes. 8. It will not be out of place here to mention that Chapter III, regarding fundamental rights is mandatory and enforceable. Chapter 1V relating to directive principles have been held to be directive in nature. Chapter 1V-A, has been inserted, now it is for the court to decide whether the duty cast on the citizen is directory or mandatory. Chapter 111, is a sanction against the State whereas Chapter 1V-A, is a sanction against a citizen. If the citizen fails to perform his duties cast on him he may be responsible for his acts to some extent, may be of commission or omission. Tax pavers are paying the tax, revenue of the State is to be applied for the development activities so that the excellence in all sphere of life individually or collectively may be achieved and the nation may continue to rise to higher levels of endeavours and achievements. 9. One cannot claim right unless he feels that he is duty bound to perform his duties. Rights and duties are co-extensive and cannot be separated with each other. The weakness in our character is that we always think of rights but we generally omit to consider the aspect of duties. We are citizen of the free democratic country. Our democracy is an open democracy and everyone has a right to know how the wheel of the State administration is moving. There may be reasonable exception to the right to know in the matters like national security law and order problems or reasonable restrictions similar to that which may be available under Article 19, of the Constitution. 10. Courts have been established to adjudicate the disputes under the Constitution and it is the duty of the State and its officers to give due respect to the courts and to appear in the court just like an ordinary litigant. No concession can be extended beyond the limits of reasonableness. Chapter IV-A, is co-extensive with Chapter III of the Constitution of India. Chapter III confers constitutional rights on the citizens which cannot be taken away by the State ordinarily without due process of law. The idea of inserting Chapter IV-A is that the citizen, must feel that it is his duty to achieve the objects laid-down under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India. Chapter III confers constitutional rights on the citizens which cannot be taken away by the State ordinarily without due process of law. The idea of inserting Chapter IV-A is that the citizen, must feel that it is his duty to achieve the objects laid-down under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India. If the citizen fails to perform his duties morally he cannot claim any right. We should keep in mind that we are the citizens of India and we rule the country and we should not feel that we are ruled by the person who are holding the chair. Persons who are holding the chair are the servants of the persons who are ruling the country. Really, rulers are the citizens and they rule through the persons who are holding offices, under the Constitution or under the Government or under the instrumentalities of the State. This feeling needs a revival. The day on which we will have this feeling in every citizen of country, there will be no problem and the representatives or the servants through whom the activities of the State are carried-out will understand that they are the servants. Chapter IV-A, is independent of Chapter IV. This is evident from the fact that for Article 51-A, new chapter has been inserted. Taking into consideration all the aspects I am of the view that Chapter IV-A, Article 51-A, is having a resemblance with Chapter III of the Constitution of India. 11. Now I will deal with the instant case. Ex-parte order was passed on 14th January, 1983. On 20-7-1983, exparte order was set-aside and 3 months time was granted for filing the written statement. From 20-7-1983, 5 adjournments were taken by the State of Rajasthan and the Court was compelled to pass the order on 14th March, 1984, that the written statement shall not be entertained now and the evidence should be recorded. In spite of the passing of the order, the State Government and its officers including low officer slept-over the matter. On 5-5-1984, ex-parte order was passed as the counsel for the State also failed to appear. On 16-5-1984 arguments were to be heard and the matter remained pending for one reason or other upto 3-11-1984. There-after, on 3-1 1-1984, arguments were re-heard and the judgment was reserved.Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code reads as under : 0. On 5-5-1984, ex-parte order was passed as the counsel for the State also failed to appear. On 16-5-1984 arguments were to be heard and the matter remained pending for one reason or other upto 3-11-1984. There-after, on 3-1 1-1984, arguments were re-heard and the judgment was reserved.Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code reads as under : 0. 9 Rule 7:-Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance:- Where the court has adjourned the hearing of the suit exparte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigned good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the court directs as to costs or otherwise he heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance" 12. Order 9 Rule 7, comes into play only when the court has adjourned the hearing of the suit if the case is reserved for judgment then it cannot be said that the case has been adjourned for hearing. After the case is reserved for judgment, O. 9 R. 7, Civil Procedure Code will not come into play at all, as the case has not been adjourned for hearing. Hearing means an effective hearing in which the court is bound to hear the parties. At the time of the dictation of judgment the court does not hear the parties but applies its mind and deliver the judgment. The court has no jurisdiction after hearing of the arguments and fixing the date for the judgment to ins oke the provision of O. 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code. I am of the view that in such circumstances, O. 9 R.7, does not come into play at all. I am fortified in taking this view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and ors. AIR 19 4 S.C. 993 , in which Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The opening words of Order 9 R. 7, are where this court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex-parte, "obviously they assume that there is to be a hearing on the date to which the suit stands adjourned. AIR 19 4 S.C. 993 , in which Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The opening words of Order 9 R. 7, are where this court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex-parte, "obviously they assume that there is to be a hearing on the date to which the suit stands adjourned. If the entirely of the "hearing" of the suit has been completed and the court being competent to pronounce the judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under 0. 20 R. 1, there is clearly no adjournment of "the hearing" of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit. In such a case 0.9 R.7, could have no application and the matter would stand at the stage of 0. IX R. 6 to be followed up by the passing of an ex-parte decree making R. 13 the only provisions in 0. IX applicable." 13. Thus, the question of jurisdiction is involved in this case, and the court hid no jurisdiction to pass an order under 0. IX R. VII CPC. It may be altogether different matter that after the pronouncement of the judgment the party affected may move an application under 0. IX Rule 13 for setting-aside the decree and the judgment of the court below. There is no specific provision in C. P. C. that what the party will do during the intervening period i. e. after the hearing of the arguments and pronouncement of the judgment. Should the party wait till the judgment is pronounced and there-after should move an application under 0. 9 Rule 13 of the CPC? If the party waits and moves an application at a later stage for setting-aside the judgment and decree he will have to explain the cause of delay of the intervening period. This may lead to a position that the party may not be able to explain the cause of delay of the intervening period i e, after the hearing of the arguments and before the pronouncement of the judgment. Where the law is silent and where it (foes not by directly or by implication prohibits to do anything that the Court has inherent powers under S 151 Civil Procedure Code to meet such contingencies. The court can set-aside the ex-parte order not under 0. Where the law is silent and where it (foes not by directly or by implication prohibits to do anything that the Court has inherent powers under S 151 Civil Procedure Code to meet such contingencies. The court can set-aside the ex-parte order not under 0. 9 Rule 7 but under the inherent powers under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code under the extraordinary circumstances. It will not be out of place here to mention that the powers vested in the court under S. 151 Civil Procedure Code should be used sparingly used and should not be used ordinarily. In the instant case, thus, I am of the view that the question of jurisdiction is involved as the court has applied the provisions of Rule 9 of Order 7 of CPC. The court has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of 0. 9 Rule 7 of the CPC. 14. Justice and equity requires that the parties should be given an opportunity to put up their case. It is a case of gross negligence of the officers of the State and then should be panalised for not coming to the court as well as for rot taking any interest in the litigation. The matter is pending since 1981. The ex-parte order was passed on 24-1-1981, and it was subsequently set-aside. Upto 14th March, 1984. the State and the Officers of the State could not file the written statement. It shows negligence on their part and the disciplinary action should be taken against them and they should be penalised for gross negligence. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to see that the tax paid by the tax payers is utilised for the excellence of the nation and is not wasted in paying costs. The State cannot spend the amount in paying the costs of the litigation ordinarily if there is a case of gross negligence of their officers. It will be a case in which the citizens will be affected as his money is wasted by the State on account of the negligence of its officers.I5. In the instant case now the written statement has been filed and in the interest of Justice. I consider it proper that equity should prevail. The order dated 27-7-85, passed by the court below under 0. 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code is hereby set aside. In the instant case now the written statement has been filed and in the interest of Justice. I consider it proper that equity should prevail. The order dated 27-7-85, passed by the court below under 0. 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code is hereby set aside. However, I will exercise the powers vested under S. 151 CPC. I will also consider it proper that the petitioner should be compensated sufficiently as he is coming from Madhya Pradesh for attending his case, regularly for the last four years or so.16. In the result, the order dated 26th July, 1985, is set-aside to this extent that the order cannot be passed under the provisions of 0. 9 Rule 7 CPC. However, the order setting aside the ex-parte decree is maintained on the following terms and conditions: "1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan is hereby requested to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the defaulting officer or officers. Chief Secretary, is further requested to recover the amount which is being paid on account of the cost from the defaulting officer. "2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, is further requested to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 6 months from today and should see that the amount -has been recovered from the officer or officers concerned. 17. The ex-parte order in fact has been passed on 5-5-1984, but the right of submission of the written statement has been taken away on 14-3-1984, Mere setting aside the ex-parte order will not give any right in the matter of submission of the written statement unless the order dated I -3-1984, is also modified. I` the ex-parte order is set-aside, the State will have no right to file the written statement. In such circumstances, I consider it proper that the order dated 14-3-1984, should also be modified as the written statement has already been filed now. The written statement should be entertained.18. The State will pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the petitioner within a period of 3 months and in case the State fails to pay the cost, the State will have no right to be heard and the court shall pronounce the judgment on the basis of the record which is available with the court according to law. The cost awarded earlier 3 times by the court below merges in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which is being awarded.19. The cost awarded earlier 3 times by the court below merges in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which is being awarded.19. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, immediately.Revision petition disposed of. *******