si"9?a 5eoc?i IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R.NO. I Ok /2007 APPLICANTS PIaintiffs ^ 4. ^> ^1^\ ^Y" RESPONDENTS applicant %i :1. Saniho Bai Wd/o Panku aged about 70 years, 2. Balram S/o Panku Aged about 27 years, 3. Akhileshwar, S/o Panku Aged about 25 years, Raghunath S/o Panku Aged about 23 years, 5. Kamal Kishore S/o Panku Aged about 21 years, All R/o Village Jagganthpur Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS ;1. Sadi Wd/o Sakhu Aged 65 years, Caste Uraori R/o Village Jagarnathpur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Lakho S/o Bandhu Aged about 65 years, R/o Village Jagganthpur Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 3. State of Chhatisgarh Through Collector Sarguja, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 4^ CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE N ^j& ^. »t J? ^ ff % :% ^ ^ .H•®fe, ^ ^ ..,* ^ @ o i§. d m § ^^' m ^ 9^ ^ ^ t N ^ M ^ ^ $ ff8 0^ * N » ^ s? ^ \".^ "-. \ '^ ••. ^ ^. "'-''SD ^^. I-.- ^K ^.m i -^•&% g '^&^^^ I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 106/2007 APPLICANTS Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS Applicant Saniho Bai and others. Versus Sadi and others S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for the applicants. Shri V.K.Pandey, counsel for the respondents No.l 85 2 (A). Shri Arvind Dubey, P.L. for the State/respondent No.3. QRDER (21-07-2011) Heard. 2. Legality and propriety of the order dated 16.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pratappur, district Surguja in Civil Suit No. 04/2003 is under assail in the Instant revision. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: (i) After proceeding ex parte against defendants No. 1 & 2 i.e. Sakhu and Lakho, the learned trial Court passed ex parte decree in favour of applicants on 25.4.2001 (ii) The legal representative of defendant No. 1 - Sakhu has preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. inter alia on the ground that Sakhu has already died on 14.11.1997. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence led before it and considering the fact that as on 11.4.2001 Sakhu was not alive, set aside the decree. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit: after passing of the ex parte decree, the possession has already been restored in applicants' favour; the defendants Sakhu and Lakho have filed their written statement on 22.2.99, and therefore, -either the written statement bears false signature of Sakhu or the contention of the legal representative of the deceased Sakhu is not correct and the learned trial court erred in setting aside the ex parte decree passed in applicants' favour. 4. On the other hand, Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2(A) would submit: the learned trial Court based on death certificate of Sakhu and based on the fact that legal representative of Sakhu has already beensubstituted on 25.03.1998 in Civil Suit No. 136A/1995, set aside the judgment and decree and there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and order deserves to be upheld. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. Indisputably, Sakhu has died prior to the date when the trial Court proceeded ex parte against him. Considering the above fact that there was no person available, against which, the trial Court could have proceeded ex parte, the trial Court has rightly set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and there is no infirmity in the order impugned leading to manifest injustice to the applicants. Therefore, in my opinion, the revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, for rest of the contentions raised by Mr. Prajapati, he can take appropriate action against the party who had filed written statement by filing appropriate application. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge