,xmwmW ,uwwwwwwwvM“ é C ‘6 ' \dl/ IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER IX RULE 7 OF THE CODE OF VIL PROCEDURE 1908 ; AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DATED 27 12 2007 PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC), DURG CHHATTISGARH AND BETWEEN : PETITIONER DEFENDANT NO. 2 Yamini Devangén, daughter 0f Late Shri Yadav Prasad Devangan aged about 27 years reSIdmg at care of Deepak Sankar Near Sub Post Office Lakhe Nagar Tillu Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF 1. Smt. Pratima Devangan, wife of Shri Ravi Devangan daughter’of Late Shrr Yadav Prasad Devangan aged about 29 years resrdent of House No 77 Ashrsh Nagar (W), Bhrlar, Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Kishore Kumar Devangan, son of Late Shri Yadav Prasad Devangan, age not know to the petitioner, residentof: (a) Viltage and Post Office Ranitarai, ' Tehsil and r, v District Durg, Chhattisgarh (b) Shikshé Karmi crass m, Government Prathmik Shala, Village Borenda 9. w/ ‘ Amrito Das, Advocate - IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) NO. II yé 12009 DEFENDANT NO. 1 . # CI , i «\r" N" F @ (Keshra), Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh \ ECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS Vi\‘m \, OR WRIT AND ISSUANCE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF UNDER APPROPRIATE OF ARTICLE OTHER 227 WRIT SUITABLE OF IN THE THE WRITS, CONSTITUTION NATURE DIRECTION OF CERTIORARI OF OR INDIA DIR , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227} NO. 1156 OF 2009 Yamini Dewangan Versus Smt. Pratima Dewangan and another. WRIT PETIT!ON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTWUNON OF INDIA [Sinqle Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. AqarWal‘ JJ Present : ShriAmrito Das, counselforthe petitioner. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20‘“ day of January, 2011) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 27—12-2007 passed by Xii Additionai District Judge (FTC), Durg whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 9 Ruie 7 of A CPC was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsei for the parties and perused the order impugned. A bare perusal of the order dated 27-12-2007 would reveal that the respondents have not raised any objection in allowing the above application despite that the trial Court has dismissed the above application. The ex-parte order was passed on 24-10-2007 and the application for setting aside the order was moved on 13-12-2007, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting her case. lt is trite law that while considering the application under Order 9 Rule 7, the approach of the Court should be liberal, as it materially affects the right of the, parties. 3. ln view of the above, in theeonsidered opinion of this Court, the order’is not sustainable'in law and the same is set , aside. The application preferred by the petitioner under Order 9 ‘5 Rule 7 of CPC, proceed with the case in accordance with law expeditiously. N‘Rh d/ N.K.Agarwai Judge is allowed. The Trial Court is directed t‘o \ a i