IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. V \ 2- / 2011. ^liigfe Ss@r'Gh APPLICANT PLAINTIFF ^ ^•'~ ...*' ^T.--;""' ~.^\^ y'- ^'vi'y^A ^yA^' ^^ ' <f Ghasi Singh, S/o. Buggy Singh, aged about 65 years, Occupation Agriculturist, Caste- Kanwar, R/o. Village Kuchena, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C. G.) VERS U S .^ RESPONDENT DEFENDANT Daharan Singh, S/o. late Shri Veer Singh, aged about 50 years, Occupation Agriculturist, Caste- Kanwar, R/o. Chodha, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (C. G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 // ^ ^C^ '%^^^ C|vIj_Rtv^jon.NG,J_1,2of201_1_ APPUCAMT Piaintifr RESPONDeiMT Defendant Ghasi Slngh, s/o Buggy' Singh Versus Daharan Singh, s/o jate Veer Slngh PROCEDURE (S8; Mr. N.K. Acsarwal. J.) Present : iVIr. Basant KaJVv'artya, counsei for the appilcant. ORAL (30.QS.2011) Heard on i.A. No.2/2011, vvhich Is an appii'cation for exemption from t'iling certified copy of the order dated 23.8.2011 . 2. Counsel for the spplicant submlts that the certifsed copy has been fi!ed by' the appiicant jn W.P. (227) No.5519/2011 and after withdrawlng the same, Instant revlsion has been preferred and, therefore, certjfied copy of the order dated 23.8.2011 could not be fjled. 3. On due consideration, the appijcation (I.A. No.2/2011} Is a!!o'vved and the appilcant Is exempted from fiiing certlfied copy of the orderdated 23.8.2011. 4. Heard on admisslon. 5. Instant civlS revisjon is djrected agalnst the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by Civji Judge, Ciass - ii, Katghora, Djstrict Korba in M.J.C. No.12/10 whereby the trial Court on respondent's applicatjon under Order 9 Ru!e 13 of the CPC set aside the ex parts decree. 6. Sult fiied by applicant/plaintiff was decreed by the triai Court ex- pa/°fe vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2010. Rsspondent fiied an appijcatjon for setting aside the above ex parte decree aiong with ^ •^^ '^"' .-•€"'' appiication for condonatlon of delay. As per respondent, due to his il!ness he Vv'as unab!e to attend the court on the date of hearing and hls counsei dld not inform him about above exparte decree. 7. Learned triaj court, on sppreciation of submlssions made by counseS for the partles, allovv'ed the respondent's appilcat.ion, set aslde the judgment and decree subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as cost to the applicant. Hence, this revision. 8. Coi)unsei for the applicant vv'ouid submit : reason asslgned by the respondent before the triai Court for condonatlon of deiay is not sufflcient and therefore, the iearned trial Court has erred In condonlng the de!ay and In settlng aside the ex decree. 9. I hs'v'e heard counsel for the appiicant and perused the order impugned. 10, Triai Court ha'ving found reason asslgned by the respondent piausibie and bonsflde, ailowed the respondent's appiication under Order 9 Rute 13 of the CPC. The appllcant herein 'w'as aiso compenssted by imposing cost of Rs,2,000/- upon respondent vvhlch is payabie to the applicant. It is trite lavv' vv'hiie dealing with such matter spproach ofthe Court should be ilberaj. 11. !n vlevv of above, l do not find any infirmity In the order impugned passed by trial Court. Counsel for the applicant ajso could not polnt any jurisdictional error in the above order. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revlsion being vvlthout substance is !iab!e to be and Is hereby' dlsmissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^