JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur wherein on an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner, as defendant in the suit for partition and permanent injunction, to set aside an order dated 23.09.1997 for ex-parte proceedings, the learned trial court has only allowed the petitioner-defendant to participate in the proceedings from the stage of the passing of the order dated 17.08.2012 i.e. at the stage of the evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs but denied liberty to file a written statement. 2. The facts of the case are that in a suit for partition and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs'), ex-parte proceedings were taken against the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') as also the respondents Nos.4 to 7 also defendants in the suit on 23.09.1997. Against the said ex-parte order dated 23.09.1997, the respondents-defendants Nos.4 and 5 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code before the trial court. That application was allowed on 28.04.2009 and the aforesaid respondents as defendants in the suit were allowed to file their written statements. The petitioner-defendant did not at that time move any application for setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 23.09.1997 before the trial court along with the other defendants aforesaid. 3. Subsequently, on 25.07.2012 the petitioner as co-defendant in the said suit moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code stating that he came to know about the partition suit and the ex-parte order dated 23.09.1997 from the respondent No.5 only on 19.07.2012. It was submitted by the petitioner-defendant before the trial court that service qua the other defendants in the suit having been earlier found to be irregular in terms of Rule 133 of General Rules (Civil), 1986 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1986') under the order dated 28.04.2009, it should be similarly so found qua the petitioner-defendant similarly situate and the ex-parte order dated 23.09.1997 qua him also be set aside and he be allowed to file a written statement and participate in the suit proceedings therefrom. 4. 4. The learned trial court considered the matter and found that the very foundation of the petitioner-defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code was based on a falsehood inasmuch as even while the case of the petitioner-defendant was that he was no more residing with other defendants, it transpired from the record before the trial court that in proceedings taken by the defendant elsewhere, he had given the same address as that of the respondent-defendant Nos.4 and 5. The trial court also noted that the petitioner-defendant, co-residing with the other defendants, was a member of their family and his pleadings about having separated with other defendants were absolutely vague as there were no indication of the time or the period of the separation or when his relationship with the other co-defendants in the suit had allegedly turned sour. In the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court held that the application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code did not appear to be a bona fide application and there were no sufficient grounds to establish the bona fides of the petitioner-defendant in approaching the court, at least subsequent to 28.04.2009, when the ex-parte proceedings against the respondent-defendants Nos.4 and 5 had been set aside. Noting further that the proceedings in the partition suit were at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence where various plaintiffs' witnesses had already been examined and that setting aside of the ex-parte decree order qua the petitioner-defendant would entail delay in the adjudication of the suit for partition and permanent injunction pending since 1997, the trial court in the facts of the case refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code as prayed for by the defendant or to allow him to file a written statement but confined the defendant's participation in the proceedings in the suit from the stage then obtained before the trial court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that the trial court itself having held under its order dated 28.04.2009 that there was violation of Rule 133 of Rules of 1986 qua other defendants while setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against the respondent-defendants Nos.4 and 5, on the same reasoning the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner-defendant also ought to have been set aside. 6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 17.08.2012. 6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 17.08.2012. 7. The moot issue before the trial court as it turned out was not with regard to the violation of Rule 133 of the Rules of 1986 - which it had already held earlier to have been in its order dated 28.04.2009 - but with regard to the bona fides of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code moved by the petitioner-defendant. The trial court found that if at all the petitioner-defendant was interested in having set aside the ex-parte proceedings against him under order dated 23.09.1997, he ought to have moved the trial court along with other co-defendants and not waited for about three more years thereafter before seeking to turn the clock back on the ground of irregularities in service made in contravention of Rule 133 of the Rules of 1986. 8. In the facts of the case as the foundation of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code was found to be factually incorrect and not bona fide by the trial court, in my considered view there is no occasion whatsoever for this Court in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.08.2012. Even otherwise no prejudice is caused to the petitioner-defendant inasmuch as he has been allowed to participate in the proceedings before the trial court from the stage where they presently obtained on the date of passing of the order dated 17.08.2012, by the trial court. Other defendants have already filed their written statements in the plaintiffs' suit for partition. I find no perversity or misdirection in law to vitiate the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the trial court. To my mind the application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code lacked bona fides. 9. In view of above, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Stay also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******