^ BEFQRETHE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARN AT BILASPUR _^-764-_ WP- /2004(SB) OtherMatters PETITIONER DEFANDENT M/o S.C.A. Chemical India Ltd. Through Director Shashank Rastogi aged about Years s/o late Shri Y.P. Rastogi, 28, Industrial Area, Tedesra, Distt- Rajnandgaon (GG). RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS t»J ^ ^•^0..^ ^.-r^ ^•••o VERSUS J^ M/s Utkal Hydrocarbon, Bhilai (partnership finn) 16, Lightlndustrial Area, Po.-Industrial estate Bhilai, -Distt-Duis (CG). - porwal, aged about 26 years aged about 52 years w/o Danmal Porwal both partners ofUtkal Hydrocarbon, Bhilai both r/o 2/11, Nehru Nagar (East), Po- NehruNagar, Bhilai, Distt- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ^ArHemantKumarShahaged about 52 years s/oRai^Shah, R/oHlG-52, Padmaaabfapur, Po. & Distt- Durg (cg) ^^5- HI Civil Judge, Class-1, District Court, Po.&Distt-Durg(cg). Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe constitution oflndia— For issiiance ofa writ ofcertiorari & mandamus and any other wriVdirection/order. Slrisi 'asi Vw* "cT^T 3n^T'grqf?F ^.! -^ •3^'*1141d'4, ri<l)ti<l!o,T°iMi'yli< *tl*lt^l »*<iq»' " '" '""""7" "^T"^;1.200 VswSi'^^ ('yfs^T) ^TRiiwaftnsii^i 16/9/2004 -^hereby 23/3/200S Smt. Meera Jaiswal- Soalkaat Venna, counsel for] Stui Asllish Shrivastavla Heard. The defendaat/petitio^f the order dated under Oider 9 Rulc 7 CPC hi Briefty stated the facts | evidence of the plaintiffon 21 fhe defendant nor its coiiui proceeded ex parte and the ,5/4/2004. On that date, t^e aad the case was adjouraed the appUcation under Ordei-1 defendaiit. Leamed cotmsel for th^ that the counsel to whoin thel and he could not appear iu aside the order impugned. fl not siiffer because of tbe placed upon the judgiaent o| .RdflffOtd emother vs. Nth Shri A. Shukla and Shri |fhe petitiouer. for respondents no. 1 to 3. 1400. •*l<)iyfl-f HIKfii ^f frst <Ri1((K ^aifiman^r. ;r has ffled fhis petition ^amst the appUcation filed by it been rejected. lare tfaat the inattei- was fixed for 72/2Q04. On that date, neither ^el was present. The c'ase was laext date fixed for evidence was Presiduig Officer was on leave jto'23/4/2004. On 23/4/2004, |9 Rule 7 CPC was fited by the I; defendaxit/petitioiier siibmitted Itiriefwasentrusted was notweU pie Court. They pray for settmg is stated that the party should mistake of the coiuisel. ReUaace is >ffte Apex Cottrt in the case of J tnjfti^I reported in AOt 1981 SC I-HG—'; ~3^ 'RffqRW, ytil'M'is; fawi'yy niiKCTI fltNitb •^200 sn^T 'WR ('yf^'^T) sn^v vi fyfw ^T 3TI^I St)*1 TOIIWHftBSII^I 'z- tftl<1?<TlftTT 'W4?ft* ^f 'fe'S^ <f^t^$)< ^?3TfiW 3)1^1 Leamed couasel for prayer on fhe grouad fhat ^espoudents no.l to 3 opposed the no good cause has been shown by fhe defendant fbr its absenjze. This Court Iias gone fixed for evidence of fhe pl^ through the record. The case was iatiff on 27/2/ 2004. On fhat date, neittier the defeudant nor^ts counselwas present. The Court proCeeded ex parte and th^ 5-4-2004. On that date, case was adjoumed for heanug on ^he Presiduig OfBcer was on leave aud fhe casewas adjoum^d to 23/4/2004. On 23/4/2004 the application under Onjler 9 Rule 7 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure was filed by fhe |defendant. The explanatiqii is fhat the seniorcounsel Shri R.^C. Rastogi was uot weU and he had iustructed his junior Shri prainod Singh to appeaf before the Court but he could not ajipear when (he case was catted at 4.00 p.m. However, at fhe he noted the next date end offheday at about 5,00 p.m.., pf hearmg. In paiia 7 of the applicadon, the counsel iijt fect stated that henceforfh such lapse would not occur.' 'n4s was supported by affidavit ofthe coitnsel. Partyshbuld npt^ufferbecause offheniistakeofthe counsel. In view of the applii^ation, the afiBdavit of the counsel and the facts mentioned t)aerem., this Court is satisfied Ihat non-appearancc of the cou|lisel was not wiUful aad fhere was XI-HG—78 sn^i ^i'it;-fi+ dqi 311^1 W1W H/Gowri M^w ^K ,b ^ 3' »nW(T5hHl<*» T^ -41-4l?t'i|, gtily-'is, fsisii'yy ^....^.^.^..<Aafcvi........•^2001 gii^r ~^K ('yf^'^) TOftW 'dfta OT^I _•-: tfae good cause sUown. Even sufiTer as party has taken aU Having considered thc| case, fhe inatenal on recc): prmciple of law laid down Vj, Jfafltf & Another (supra) because oftitie mistake of dated 16/9/2004 ^set asid^, The petition is aUowe^ Rs.500/- (Rs, Five respondents/ plam.tifis. Cc| possible greferably within a ^ At this stage, leanie4 plaiatiffs subinitfed fhat fher^ Having considered, it be coinpleted as early as three nionths finm fhe date order before fhe court below. ^,^. . |3therwise, the party should not pie precautions. facts and circunistences of fhe Ird and ia view of fh.e setfled |y fhe Apex Court in fhe case of t|iat the party should not suffer coyjisel, fhe unpugned order ^prfd^l^ "HFRff ^f 'f^rct •(f^^R ^TSTfilH 3(1^1 heslrm subject to payment of costs of ed Oiily) to be paid to the sts be deposited as. early as enod Qffifteen days. counsel for fhe respondents/ ;is adelay ia triaL rmg offhe case is expedited. Let as possible preferably within ?f productiou of the copy pf this