IN THE H16H COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (CHATTISGARHl Smglg BeneK CIVIL REVISION N0. ^/ /2006 ^3 PETITIONER/DEFENDANT RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF 1 ^^>- ^ y'W\ Q.f- -.'<^/^y DEFENDANT No. 2&3 2. € > Jagdish Prasad Sharma ^ S/o Dhansalsl Sharma Aged about 55 years R/o Bharkapara, Dist. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) VE^RSUS Gomtibai, , W/o Banwari Lal Sharma Aged about 35 years, R/o Mahukhurd, P.0. Mahukala, Gangpur City, (Rajasthan) Through the Power ofAttorney hofder Banwari Lai Sharma, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, R/o Mahukhurd, P.0. Mahukala Dist. Sawai Madhopur, Gangpur City (Rajasthan) Baisakhin Bai Sahu, W/o Dashruram Sahu, Aged about 98 years, R/o Hiramoti Line, Rajnandgaon, Tah. & Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Naresh Baid, Aged about 39 years S/o Bhawar Lal Baid, R/o Sadarbazar, Rajnandgaon, Tah. & Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 XI-HC-78 TPTcOT^TT^ \SV^ <-<||q IC!><<, tPTTl1<1<l<o, Ri«11d^ C^. k^. ^^/o^ ^200 3T1^5TtR^ (yil^q^) 3n^^T^Tft»ircb ?CT3n^^Tawro .\. ^FOTWiitSa 3TT^^T 27.04.2008 Shri Anand Shukia, Learne^l counsel for the appiicant. Heard. The applicant has preferrep order dated 06.03.2006 passed in M.J.C. No. 19/2004 and by wtlich appiicant No. 1 under order 9 ru!4 7A/2002 has beeh restored to dismissaf and default dated 09.1 aside. this instant Civil Revision against the Learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon aiiowing the appiication of the non" 9 of the CPC, the original civil suit No. |its origina! number and the order of p3.2004 (Annexure P-1) has been set Learned counci! for the api for recording of evidence of plai|ntiff neither the piaintiff nor his witnes^ counsel for the plaintiff atso djd n| therefore, this suit was dismissed Subsequentiy,on 18.06.2Cy suit was fiied by fhe piaintiff resident of Gangapur city, Rajastl) herto attend each dates in the whenever her presence witl b4 However, she did not receh/e an^| on 09.03.2004 and therefore she <pi<<Io41Ti ^ii+ioT^" fe^l ^RI^N ^3?f^T3n^$T ^iicant submits that the matter was fixed on 9.03.04 however, on that date »werepresent before the Court and the »tappear when the case was caISed and 'or want of prosecution. 2CJ04,t, the appllcation for restoration of the st^ting therein that the plaintlff was the lan and therefore it was not possible for cafce and her counsei had assured her that required, he wii! be Intimating her. intimation that her presence is required ^ouid not personaily appear on that date. ^ XI-HC-78 TPTBffi^:RW ^SSi ^qiqiw<l/yTft<l<14,Rlril^^'< c^.^-^/Q^ ^.........:..............^....., —2- 3n^9Tq^F(yiI^q<g) ^ysoo OT^nw^Jch WTT 3TI^5Tw*ii<p ^ ^ ?^rT8^^Tf^T 3H^^T q»I<tIo<Ell^l^oil"^' fe^ \R|^|^ ^3lKl*l3IT^^f Her origjnal counsel Shri G.L.Ch^ndei was sick since January 2004 and therefore he could not communica1|e the plaintiff regarding the date fixed. The defendant disputed th| non-appearance and submitted ti"j out by the pIaJntilT forher non-app^ therefore the appllcatjon for restor^ Learned District Judge ex^ applicant and non-applicant after upon the statement of the husbaij Damodar Prasad Sharma and adjournment moved on behalf of t?| mentioned that theoriginal coun| serious iilness and for that reas| therefore the dates could not be ^ reasons assigned by the plaintiff for lat no sufficient cause has been made larance on that date i.e. 09.03.2004 and ^tion shouid have been rejected. tmined the witnesses on behalf of the ["aming the issues and thereafter relying |d, A.W.-1 and relative ofthe appiicant [urther considering the appiication for |e plaintiff on21.01.2004 wherein it was ^el Shri G.L.Chande! is suffering from |)n he is not attending the Court and ^ommunicated to the applicant and the application for restoratjon submitt^d bythe applicant was aiiowed. 1 have heard learned couns^l for the appiicant. Taking into consideration ti^ reasons assigned by the trla! Courtfor restoring the suit and allowing the|applicatlon under Order 9 Rule 9 ofthe CPC, 1 am ofthe opinion that ther^ is no illegaiity or material irregularityin the impugned order which req revisionai jurisdiction. Accordingly stage itseif. ^ires interference in the exerdse of |the appiication is rejected atthe motion Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge