a1 y/" 7’— (é//“ SW3 IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. S039 OF 2011 PETITIONERS (Defendanfs) / 1. 6r‘ Budharu Sahu, son of Lafel Sahu, aged abouT 52 years. Bhaddu Sahu, son of LaTel Sahu, aged abou’r 50 years. Panchu Sahu, son of La’rel Sahu, aged about 48 years. Chavaram Sahu, son of LaTel Sahu, aged about 41 years. Aghnuram, son of Romsingh Sahu, aged obouT 68 years. Smf.’ Pa‘raiya, widow of La‘re Ramsingh, aged abouT 75 7. w" years. ‘5i1'abai, daughfer of Lafe Ramsingh aged abou’r 37 years. .9 Geefaboi, daughfer of Late Ramsingh, aged abouf 33 years. “”Khujji Bai, daugh’rer of LaTe Ramsingh, aged abou’r 31 years. Tiharu, son of Nommu, aged abou‘r 52 years. Mayaram, son of Nammu, aged abouf 51 years. Dayaram, son of Nammu aged abouf 50 years. ,ey 10. 11. 12. .r § aLE 3‘2““ 1%;Smf. Rani, daughTer‘ of Nammu, aged abouf 33 years. 1455mt Kunwariya, daughter of Nammu, aged about 46 years. / 15. SmT. Savi‘rr'i, daughTer of' Nammu, aged abouf 36 year's. 16. Dukalabai, widow of Nammu, aged abou‘r 73 years Mb- /+° Ié- IQ/o' moat Mme Vs am“ RmPV‘Lv aw RESPONDENT$ 1. Laxminarayan Singh, aged 36 (Pluin'riff) § year's, son of Shr'i Onkarnafh Singh, resident of Pachpedi Naka, Roipur‘ (CG) 2". Sfafe of ChhaTTisgar‘h, fhrough The Collecfor, Raipur. (“glThe Sub—Regisfr‘ar', Office of Regisfr'ar, Raipur. /4/.$andeep Agarwal, son of Shri C.L. Agarwal, $oukd“; R10 ‘ ”Rho (m~ QML b PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE Defendanf No. 17 To 19 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERS : Budharu Sahu & others Defendants Versus RESPONDENTS : Laxminarayan Singh & others Plaintiif HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1036 of201 l WRIT PE ON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB Hon'ble Mr N K. Agarwal J ) Present : Shri 3P Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Shn GD Waswam Govt Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25.02.2011) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 21.01201 l, passed by the IXth Addl. District Judge (FTC), Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 25-A/07, whereby the petitioner’s application tiled under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC was dismissed. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that : the petitioners/defendants appeared in the suit hled by the respondents/plaintitfs for specific performance of contract and med their written statement. The matter was posted on 12.10.2010 for evidence. Since the date was wrongly noted as 26.10.10 by the counsel for the petitioners in his diary, the petitioners could not appear on 12.10.10 and the trial court proceeded exparte against the petitioners. Immediately therealter i.e. after 14 days, the petitioners hled an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside exparte order on the ground that their Advocate, by mistake, has ?‘’rs ” Es‘ noted the date as 26.10.10 instead of 12.10,10. avit of d Advocate was also fi!ed. However, the trial court dismissed the said application on the ground that the diary produced by the Advocate is not containing any date after 01.09.10 and the ground taken is not available to them. Hence this petition. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. Although the petitioners could not prove that their Advocate by mistake Has noted the date as 26.10.10 instead of 12.10.10, but the provisions contained in Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC are not penal in nature. The petitioners immediately alter 14 days appeared and applied for setting aside exparte order and the other party could be compensated by imposing costs on the petitioners. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned dated 21.01.2011 deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the application tiled by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is allowed, subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs payable to the plaintih‘s. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Since this petition is heard in the absence of respondents, they are free to move with an appropriate application, if aggrieved. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. / . Sdl- N.K. Agrawa‘ Judge n.1,I.‘/\ M Sahu