ORDER : 1. This miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/judgment debtor against the order dated 28.01.2023, passed in Execution Case No.72/2016 by the Additional Judge to Civil Judge Junior Division, Petlawad District Jhabua; whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as “CPC”), has been rejected on the ground of delay and conduct of the parties. 2. In brief facts of the case are that a suit for, declaration, title, possession, and permanent injunction was filed by Kamla Bai Bairagi and 2 others against Motidas Bairagi and four others. The present petitioner/Shambhudas Bairagi happens to be son of Motidas Bairagi. The aforesaid suit was decreed initially on 30.08.2001, and after some other proceeding of remand etc., finally S.A.No.43/2015 (Sampat Bai W/o Motidas Bairagi Vs. Kamlabai W/o Tolaram Bairagi) was also dismissed as barred by limitation filed by petitioner/defendant on 15.02.2018 (Annexure R-1). 3. In the aforesaid suit, the execution proceeding for the civil Suit no.16A/1988 was filed in the year 2013, and the counsel for the petitioner, who had given his appearance, pleaded no instructions on 12.3.2021. Thus, the trial Court proceeded exparte against the petitioner. On 16.11.2021, vakalatnama was filed by on behalf of the petitioner by another counsel, and thereafter the matter was fixed on many others occasion, however, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC was filed only on 2.12.2022, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 12.03.2021, which was rejected on 28.01.2023, on the ground of delay and on account of conduct of the parties and thereafter on 24.04.2023, Shri Manoj Kumar Purohit was appointed as receiver of the suit property. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC ought not to have been rejected by the Executing Court, and it should have been allowed on the next date of proceeding against him exparte as he had appeared on 16.11.2021, and on 4.12.2021 through Advocate. Thus, it is submitted that there was no reason for the executing Court to reject the application out right. 5. Thus, it is submitted that there was no reason for the executing Court to reject the application out right. 5. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has opposed the prayer, and has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner was aware of the execution proceedings, which is also apparent from the fact that his counsel had appeared till 12.03.2021, and subsequently also other counsel filed vakalatnama on his behalf on 16.11.2021. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner appeared on as many as 26 dates, but filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC only on 2/12/2022 which has been rightly rejected by the executing Court on account of inordinate delay, and conduct of the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the respondents are being deprived of the fruits of the decree which was passed in his favour on 30.08.2001, and in fact the suit was filed in the year 1988. Thus, it is submitted that the respondents are still to taste the victory after a period of around 35 years. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 8. So far as Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is concerned, the same reads as under:- “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 ex -parte and the defendant , at or before such hearing , appears and assigns good cause for his previous non -appearance, he may , upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise , be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day , fixed for his appearance.” 9. At this juncture, this court can also fruitfully rely upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1955 SC 425 , the relevant para of the same reads as under:- “27. Then comes Rule 7 which provides that if at an adjourned hearing the defendant appears and shows good cause for his “previous non-appearance”, he can be heard in answer to the suit “as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance”. Then comes Rule 7 which provides that if at an adjourned hearing the defendant appears and shows good cause for his “previous non-appearance”, he can be heard in answer to the suit “as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance”. This cannot be read to mean, as it has been by some learned Judges, that he cannot be allowed to appear at all if he does not show good cause. All it means is that he cannot be relegated to the position he would have occupied if he had appeared.”(emphasis supplied) 10. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner’s counsel had appeared before the trial Court till 12.3.2021, and thereafter, till 16.11.2021, his counsel had appeared continuously which is also apparent from the fact that the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC was filed on 2.12.2022, and in such circumstances, although there is no illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the executing Court in holding that no good cause has been shown by the petitioner, as the petitioner has not filed any application for setting aside the ex-parte order in the executing Court on as many as on 26 dates when the matter was fixed before the Executing Court, however, since the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order, in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh (supra), it is held that the right of the petitioner to contest the matter could not have been curtailed even in respect of the further proceedings. In such circumstances, the executing Court could also have imposed appropriate cost on the petitioner to allow him to participate in the executing proceedings, henceforth as is also provided under Rule 7 of Order 9 of CPC. 11. Thus, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the application filed by the petitioner is allowed at a cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents/decree holders in the executing court on the next date of hearing. Subject to such payment, the petitioner shall be allowed to participate in the execution proceedings. 12 The executing Court is also directed to conclude the proceedings preferably within a further period of six months. 13. With the aforesaid observations the miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.