IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0.5Tl <P OF 2005 PETITIONER Plaintiff ^ Harishchddra S/o Deviprasad Jaisawal Aged about 51 years R/o Village Gursiya , Tah. Katghora , Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQNDENT: Defendant^^^s ^°'::^^-'"3.r-"fi': Vijay pal Sing , S/o Govind Sing aged about years, R/o Village - Gursiya , Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ^' ^^<"15n' ^^ WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3TT^?T^T f^Tr^3n^r ^RW;Rf^T 3^T ^{!^i<r8^, ^Tfl^^K?, ^l^l<rl^< t sr^r^ra^ ^..^.^.Q..^ ^^ HTRt-TI ^CTTT^ 3^T?;RFTW^fN Jucjge filirjg 3-8-2005 Heard Shri Rakesh PandeyJ The instant writ petition has| 227 of the Constitution of Indial correctness of the order dated 5 Korba whereby learned District petitioner herein against the order Brief facts relevant for th^ petitioner herein field civil suit ag£|i said suit was dismissed in default restoration was fiied on 23-9-97] appiication in support of that unde| filed for condonation of delay in suit. Learned Judge in the first) Section 5 of fhe Limitation Act appiication for restoration on 23^ chaiienged In appea! the order ofd( of the Limitation Act, therefore, tha|1 petitioner chailenged the order c|i before learned District Judge and on the ground that since the orderj been challenged, therefore, and the same was dismiissed on 28 In view of the above, 1 do n^l order. The writ petition is liabi^ dismissed. Consequently, I. A. N0.668Q; applicjation <=hl^f<n^'1 HTR^ff ^* te^t ^f^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T [counsel for the petitioner. been filed by the petitioner under Article questioning the legality. propriety and ^larch 2005 passed by the District Judge, rejected the Misc. Appeal filed by the ctated 28-7-99. disposal of this petition are that the inst the respondent for declaration. The ^n 9-7-97 and thereafter an application for after the expiry of limitation, and an Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also the application for restoration ofthe civil instance rejected the application under 25-6-99 and thereafter dismissed the 1-7-99. The petitioner herein had not (smissal ofthe application under Section 5 order attained the finaiity. However, the lismissing the application dated 28-7-99 [earned District Judge rejected the appeai jrejecting the limitation application has not for restoration became time barred 3-7-99. find any illegality or infirmity in the above to be dismissed a<nd it is accordingly 0n TT 2005 also stands disposed of. / .^ ^O^ULI Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^'