ORDER : SANDEEP SHAH, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has challenged the order dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned District Judge No.3, Bhilwara, Camp Mandalgarh, whereby though he dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC filed by the respondent No.3, however, he permitted to the respondent to contest in the proceedings in future from the date of the order. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.09.2024, by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for not permitting the respondent No.3 to appear in the proceedings was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, while submitting that the property in dispute along with some portion of agricultureal land came in his share in pursuant to the partition dated 30.04.1985 and the respondents defendants attempted to forcibly take possession of the petitioner’s land. The respondent No.3- Laxman Singh though did not file a written statement, however, on 07.08.2008, he made a statement before the trial Court adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Subsequently, on 04.10.2008, ex parte proceedings were initiated against respondent No.3 (arrayed as defendant No.5). The respondent No.3 filed an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of CPC while the matter was fixed at the stage of framing of issues and prayed for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against him. He further asserted that he came to know about the ex-parte proceedings, very late as he engaged the counsel, however, the counsel had not put in appearance and post coming to know of default the application was moved. The learned trial Court by way of the order impugned dated 22.05.2018 has held that the respondent had not set out grounds to condone the delay in filing the application and no reasons were given as to why he did not put in appearance for a period of ten years and therefore, dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC. The learned trial Court, however, permitted the respondent No.3 to participated in the future proceedings in the suit. The matter was thereafter fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. At a later stage, the respondent No.3 filed his affidavit on 21.08.2024, in support of the evidence when the evidence of defendants started. The learned trial Court, however, permitted the respondent No.3 to participated in the future proceedings in the suit. The matter was thereafter fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. At a later stage, the respondent No.3 filed his affidavit on 21.08.2024, in support of the evidence when the evidence of defendants started. It was at this stage that a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14975/2024 came to be filed after a delay of around six years by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.05.2018. The writ petition in question was listed today and has been withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 22.05.2018, in the present writ petition. Liberty prayed for has been granted while disposing of the writ petition. Post filing of the affidavit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC raising objection with regard to the respondent participating in the proceedings and the application has been rejected vide order dated 25.09.2024. 3. Being aggrieved against the above mentioned orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the application under Order IX, Rule 7 was rejected, there was no occasion available for the trial Court to permit the petitioner to participate in the future proceedings in the same suit and the above mentioned order is against the very intent of provisions of Order IX, Rule 7 of CPC. He further submits that when the application under Order IX, Rule 7 was rejected then there was no occasion for the respondent defendant to file his affidavit or to appear in the witness box and, therefore, the application under Section 151 CPC was filed, however, the same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court without considering the law applicable in the case in hand. He asserts that after dismissal of application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC, the respondent was barred from appearing in the suit or contest in the same in any manner whatsoever. He, thus, prayed that the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. He asserts that after dismissal of application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC, the respondent was barred from appearing in the suit or contest in the same in any manner whatsoever. He, thus, prayed that the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 22.05.2018 cannot be challenged by the petitioner after a gross delay, even if liberty is granted as even the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2024, wherein the order in question was challenged, thus, there is a gross delay of six years and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. On merits, he submits that the very purpose of Order IX, Rule 7 is that the applicant is permitted to participate in the proceedings from the stage when the ex-parte proceedings were initiated, irrespective of the present stage of the suit. He further asserts that the even if the application under Order IX, Rule 7 is rejected then too the defendant can participate in the suit proceedings at the stage, where the trial of the suit is going on. He, thus, submits that the orders impugned are justified and do not call for interference from this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record. As far as the order dated 22.05.2018 is concerned, the same had been challenged for first time by the petitioner in the year 2024 by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14975/2024 and for six years he did not challenge the order impugned, although the writ petition above mentioned was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order in question in the present writ petition, however, that liberty by itself would not condone the delay of six years on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order impugned. Thus on the ground of delay itself the writ petition, to the extent of challenge to the order dated 22.05.2018 deserves to be dismissed. 7. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was considered on the merits also. As far as the language of Order IX, Rule 7 CPC is concerned, the same provides as under:- “7. Thus on the ground of delay itself the writ petition, to the extent of challenge to the order dated 22.05.2018 deserves to be dismissed. 7. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was considered on the merits also. As far as the language of Order IX, Rule 7 CPC is concerned, the same provides 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.” 8. A perusal of the same will reveal that if the defendant appears and the application under Order IX, Rule 7 is allowed, then the clock is set back to the stage when the proceedings were initiated ex-parte against the defendants. The word used “as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance” further clarifies this aspect. Thus, if he appears at a stage where probably reply is closed or the evidence has been completed and the Court allows the proceedings under Order IX, Rule 7, then the clock is set back and the defendant is permitted to file their reply or produce his defence witnesses, as the stage may be. 9. However, even if the application under Order IX, Rule 7 is rejected then it does not preclude the defendant from appearing before the Court in the suit in question from the stage where the suit is going on. Thus, even if application of the defendant under Order IX, Rule 7 was rejected, he could have appeared in the suit from the stage where the suit was when he entered his appearance. 10. In this regard the law is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1955 in the case of ‘Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr.’ reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 425, has held as under :- “30. Now R. 2 only applies when one or both of the parties do not appear on the day fixed' for the adjourned hearing'. The Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1955 in the case of ‘Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr.’ reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 425, has held as under :- “30. Now R. 2 only applies when one or both of the parties do not appear on the day fixed' for the adjourned hearing'. In that event, the Court is thrown back to O. 9 with the additional power to make "such order as it thinks fit". When it goes back to O 9 it finds that it is again empowered to proceed 'ex parte' on the adjourned hearing in the same way as it did, or could have done, if one or other of the parties had not appeared at the first hearing, that is to say, the right to proceed 'ex parte' is a right which accrues from day to day because at each adjourned hearing the Court is thrown back to 0.9. R. 6.It is not a mortgaging of the future but only applies to the particular hearing at which a party was afforded the chance to appear and did not avail himself of it. Therefore, if a party does appear on "the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned", he cannot be stopped from participating in the proceedings simply because he did not appear on the first or some other hearing 31. But though he has the right to appear at an adjourned hearing, he has no right to set back the hands of the clock. Order 9, R. 7 makes that clear. Therefore, unless he can show good cause, he must accept all that has gone before and be content to proceed from the stage at which he comes in. But what exactly does that import? To determine that it will be necessary to hark back to the first hearing” 11. The above mentioned judgment was later followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘ Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. ’ reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993, wherein paragraph No. 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “19. To determine that it will be necessary to hark back to the first hearing” 11. The above mentioned judgment was later followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘ Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. ’ reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993, wherein paragraph No. 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “19. …..On the terms of O. IX R. 7 if the defendant appears on such adjourned date and satisfies the Court by showing good cause for his non-appearance on the previous day or days he might have the earlier proceedings recalled - "set the clock back" and have the suit heard in his presence. On the other hand, he might fail in showing good cause. Even in such a case he is not penalised in the sense of being forbidden to take part in the further proceedings of the suit or whatever might still remain of the trial, only he cannot claim to be relegated to the position that he occupied at the commencement of the trial. Thus every contingency which is likely to happen in the trial vis-vis the non-appearance of the defendant at the hearing of a suit has been provided for and O. IX R. 7 and O. IX R. 13 between them exhaust the whole gamut of situations that might arise during the course of the trial…..” 12. Thus, it is clear that even if the application under Order IX, Rule 7 is dismissed then too the defendant cannot be denied the right to appear in the case and contest the case from the stage of trial when he reappears before the learned trial Court. In the present case admittedly the written statement of the respondent (as he adopted the written statement of defendant No.1) was on record and, therefore, he was rightly permitted to participate in the trial by way of filing his affidavit and appearing as a witness to defend his case. Thus, the order impugned has rightly been passed and does not call for judicial intervention by this Court while exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.