IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF FHHATTISGARH flyu_REvS^^1^2flfia s!nafe BSB£B PETITIONER/ : ^ Navratan Dhobi S/o. Malik NON APPLICANT ~7~ Ram Dhobi, aged about : 42 Cyjy\ Years/ R/°- Vina9e : Harda^ .,..<y^^\d7 Tahsil : Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ ^PPLICANTS ^ Bhushal Prasad S/o. Pila, aged about : 51 years, Purushottam S/o. Pila, aged about : 35 years, Both are R/o. Village :. Harda, Tahsil : Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh : Through : Collector, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ^"" CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE_C!VIL PROCEDURE CODE ^ ^y ,•<?' /] ON<^ WHWt ^W^ 'TroT ^l^lc't^, ^^1<-l^^, fsf^fRTy ...G..fc,....£l.^... °^200 ^TT^? ^^F (^f351^t?) ^n^?i ^T'f^fw ^ff ^T^T 9bNi<=b \^^ ^OTW^fi^^TT^T st»Hf<rt4ilTTR^f ^ f^St iRn^K ^3?RTH3:rT^T larwal S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. . 30.04.2310 Shri Pushpendra Kumar Pa1|el, Advocate for applicant. Shri GD Waswani.Govt. Ad^ocate for State. Lsgality and propriety of| passed bythe Civil Judge, Class 1 the order dated 27.04.2009 Sakti, Distt. Durg, in MJC No. 30/2002 is under assail in the inst^nt revision. The facts in brief are as un< The petitioner/plaintiff jnstitijrted a siwt seeking relief of title against the non applicants. 0(i 15.09.2000, the trial court procceded exparte against the no(i appljcants and on 25.06.2001 passed the exparte decree in plair|tiffs favour. The iion applicants preferre(cf an ap^ication under Order 9 Rute 13 of CPC on 26.03.02 a|ongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for s^tting aside the above decree after condoning delay on the grout to Stateof Jammu & Kashmir to ^ poor and illiterate persons. Sincej village they could not instruct tt^ reason on 15.09.2000 the trial c4 them. Immediately after their r( application. Their non appear^ince was unjntentional and bonafide. Prayer was opposed by the id that the non applicants went •arn their livelihood as they are they were not present in their eir Advocate and due to this urt proceeded exparte against iturn they have preferred the applicant. j?m^hr sNhr ^n'^^, .^R-hFik —FS/147—2/2010 —i ,00,000. '<:.^^''\.'" ^^ '"? -^ ^^^^'" ^~^T v^l^!<n4, ^TII^^!^ M^i<HL[< WH^T sb^i<^ ••^200 ^T^T ^RT (1?^<l?) ^n^r ^r ^i<* WTW^TsFRN? ^^1<' Sahu ^^T?W ^lf^ 3TI^T ndn The trial court on apprecialj recorded a finding that the sufficient cause for their no appji proceeded exparte and set aside| Havjog heard the counsel havihg pemsed the order jyrisdjctionaj illegality committed | aforesaidorder.It is trite lawthi libers? while deciding such applic^ In view of above, the revis|on liable to be and is hereby dismis^ed lion of material placed on record applicants have established sarance on the date they were the exparte decree. jappearing for the applicant and irr^pugned, 1 do not ftnd any |by the trial court in passing the the court's approach should be btion. or»i^?<vi<fli"HR^f ^ f^zt <i^i<^k ^T 3TRTH 3TT^T being devoid of substance is No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge W(rfW ^hr^TT^-?;, .^r-r^iR —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000.