CRP 188/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr B Islam, learne d counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the proforma defendant no.6 in TS No.1085 of 2006 , by the present petition has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court un der Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order dated 12.3 .2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup in TS No.1085 of 2006 whereby a nd where-under the petition filed by him under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting as ide the order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the learned Court below to proceed expar te against him has been rejected. It appears from the order impugned that summons in the suit was served o n the present petitioner on 21.2.2007 who, on receipt thereof, entered appearanc e through his learned counsel on 16.7.2007. According to the petitioner, the cou nsel engaged by him did not take any steps, for which an order was passed by the learned court below to proceed exparte against him, as he did not turn up despi te service of summons. Petitioner contends that for the first time he came to kn ow on 31.11.2010 that an order has been passed to proceed exparte against him wh en he came to his younger brother’s house at Guwahati and met the counsel engage d by him. Thereafter, he tried to contact his counsel who, however, was not avai lable at his residence and as such, could not contact him and file an applicatio n under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. In the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the petitioner admitt ed that he engaged a counsel on 16.7.2007, who, according to the petitioner, did not take any steps. The petitioner did not make any enquiry about the fate of t he suit till 31.1.2010 i.e. for about 2 ‰ years. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application praying for setting aside the order dated 16.7.2007. The learned court below, keeping in view the aforesaid position, in my v iew, has rightly passed the impugned order. Moreover, no decree was prayed for a gainst the present petitioner, who is the proforma defendant no.6 in the suit. In view of above, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to invo ke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and hence th e same is dismissed. No costs.