^^ 4ry? HIGH ©OUMTeiGHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR PETmQNER (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS (Defendants) WMTPETmONNo. 2^4 of2004 : 1. Smt. Sdima Khatoon WA'0 Late Shri Attaullah, aged about70 years. 2. Ikram Ullah S/o Late Sfari Attaullah, aged about 44 years. 3. Mobil Ullah S/o Late Shri Attatillah, aged about 35 years. All resici^ of Villa^ Bodrikala, at present resident of Risaa Para, Dhanitari Tehsil - &, Dist Dtoiitari (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. The State of Chhattfegarh Through Colkotar, Dhamatari, Disfetict Dham^ari (C.G.) 2. Gajanand S/o Shri Manga Ram Aged about 50 years, by Caste Kalar. 3. HariRam S/o Shri Gajaaand, aged about 37 years, by caste Kalar, Both resident of village - Bodrikala, Thasil Gumr asd Dist. Durg(C.G.) WRTT PEimON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTK)N 01 INDIA SB: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotrf, J. Present: Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate forAe petMoners. Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Psavsl Lawyer fw tfie Sfate. Shri Manoj Mishm, Advoeate for the respondent No. 2 asnd3. ORAL08DER (Passed on 05th day of November, 2008) 1. The petitioners. bemg aggrieved fey (he or^CT date^ 05.Q5.2004 passed by the Additional District Judg^ Balod, District Durg, passed in MJ.C. No. 10/2003 (Annexure P/l), whereby and whereunder tiie appeal preferred by tiie petitioner agaiost fhe judgment dated 18.02.2003 (Amiexure P/4) passed in Civil Suit No. 23-A/2002, by Civil Judge, Qass I, Balod, Disfrict Durg, has beai rejected as being time harred, have fil^ this petition seeking a writ in the natiire ofcertiomri to condoiie the d@lay of eight days in fllmg tiie first ^ppeal and ccmsequantly, ^ie imp^gned judgment and order dated 05.05.2004, may be quashed. ^^ fll i>s. ' W ^' '%J^^/f ^Nte^g^' -2- Tte relevant fects j^ disposal oftMs ^ m Ihat the Civfl Jiid^ Class L Balod, District Durg dismissed the suit of fhe petitioners (plaintifis) fbr declaration ai^l pemianent injimction. Tlw an appeal befbrc fhe Dfc^ct Judgp/Durg a^ asi a^plicati(^ii for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Aet, 1963 on 01.04.2003. The petitioners, in fheir application. cle^rly stated fhat Ihe petitioners came to know the fect of fhe decision of A©suit on 21.03.2003, when fhey had gone to Balod Court. The petittoaeis were i»t infomied about tiiejudpiient dated 18.02.2003 paased }fy 1h©Trial Cowt. The petitioners made an application on the same day fer obtainteg certified copy of ttie judgnaent on 21.03.2003. The same was made available to Ifae petitioners oa 25.03.2002. The a^peal was iEiamediatdy preferred oa 01.04.2003. bi fhe process, tfaere was a delay of dght days which was beyond control ofthe petitioners airi the same deserws te b© allowed in the interest ofjustice. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondeat No. 2 aad 3 did not oppose the application for condonation ofdelay serieusly and stated ^atfhe faets stated by the petitioners werc not correct an<ti>ray^ fbr dismissal <rfthe a^>eal beingtime barred onttie ground (rfdelay ofdght days. Be tihat as it may, delay ofei^it days m filingthc? ^ppeal m not fatdl aiid has not eaused aiiy prejudice to the parti^s. TIds has ftirtte not creabed any right in favour oflhe respondents. TTius, the aiyettate Ceurt ou^it to have condoned tiie delay ofei^tt days ia prefecring tfie appeal. I <to not /'y'i'^''':'\ ^ ^^%%?^ s -3- Amit find any reasCTi as to why tfae petitioners be depnved Qf1t|eirn^rt offirst appeal onfhe ground ofdelay ofeight days only. 5. Having regard to the facts situation of tiie case, it is expedient and desirable in Ihe interest ofjustice that delay m filiiig appeal is coiidoned. 6. Accwdingly, the petition is allowed. The dday in jRIu^ appeal is condoned andthe appeal be restored to the original flte. Th@ Coart below is directedto consicbr and decide ^he case afi-esh on naerite m accordatice with law. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge