c.r- IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGSJIH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. /r2-£? /2009 ^S^^^-fO-^ ^ppellant(applicant) ^r :„. Satyodr^- Das s/o Vikram das aged about 39 years R/o vlllage Bagara Mohalla No 06 thana Bhalumada Dist Anuppur (M.P.) Versus :,„. Shayam bai wife of Satyendra ' -->"" Das aged about 38 years R/o Village Tendumuda Thana Marwahi Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) ^w^"' MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(d) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 Court_ ,fe-e—a££i-^^-< ^l .2^:^!y'~ ».?-'^^^ '^^ '^^:;... ^^"" Respondent(Non-applicant) R F :C-22 ^TT^T^T f^n^^n^T $^<-iicb ^f^a •^o? -^IRI^FT. '^tW^. fc«riwy 'RTRC^T^^Icb sn^r ^I^K /v^,A-N^- J>^ "H^ 200 5 fc|<b<^T* 3?n^'^n^n: ^ftn S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Aharwal 11^)1-2010 Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved by the c|r Additional Distrjct Judge, Pendra Case No.01/2008 whereby and by the appellant under Order dismissed. The facte stated brjeflyas u| The respondent preferred conjugal rights before the triali proceeded ex-parte on 16-06-2(| decree was passed on 25-07-200^ said ex-parte judgment and de^ appellant by filtng an application u^ on the ground that summons without service of nottee on the passedwhich deserves to be set Learned trial Court after were served upon tiie appejlant hearing on 16-06-2008 and when that date, the trial Court proceeded application, hence this appeal. Learned counsel appearing| out any factualor legal mistake in chl^fd^l-l ^^ ^ fe^ ^T^R ^T 3ti^R STI^T ?ounsel for the appeltant rder dated 01-08-2CK®passed by l;|?oad,DJstrict BJIaspur in Misc. Civil wttereunder tfie applteation preferred Rute 13 of C.P.C. has been |Tder: |an application for restoration of Court in v^iich the appeltant lp08 and thereafter, an ©x-parte in favour of the responclent. The ^ree has been assailed by the lider Order 9Rute 13 ofthe C.P.C. were |iever served on the appellant and aplpellant, the said decree ha®been ta^ide. retsording fincting that the summons on 10-05-2008 for the date of the appellant did not appear on ex-parte against him, rejected the [forthe appellant coutd not poirrt t(ie orcter passed by th@ triai Court, :C-22 |N^%- 3TT^T''^T r<Tii<=b ^^[ 5t^^i<=n ^f^a Kw "3'acT ^||<41d<4, ^-at^^Ko, fa^l^y 3?Ti^T XR^ f^ A--f^-Q. i^ HW<r\{ $b^ich 200^ '^<8T' 'STT^T ^Rfi^R: ^f^ — ^ but submitted that in the interest of setaside to give opportunity of hearir 1 have heard leamed counsel jlusttce, ex-parte deerea may be r|g to the appellant. for the appellant and perused the order impugned. Under Order9 Rute 13 of C.R.C., the Court can set aslde the ex-parte decree against the defen<jlant, jf defendant satisfles the Court that the summon was not c^ily served on him or he was prevented by any sufRcient cause was called on for hearing. An emb proviso to this Rule that no Court sl^all set aslde the decree ^ssed ex-parte merely on the ground thatfiere has been an irr^ularity in the service of summon, if It is satisfi^d ttiat the defendant had notice for the date of hearing and had suffit plajntifFs claim. Here in Uie instent| appellant had notice for the date of| time to appear and answer the ap| application under Order 9 Rute 13 summon ofthe case has not been false. In this facts and circumstandes of the case, the learned trial Court has dismjssed the applicatiot illegality in the order passed by ttie ttial Court. In the resuft, the appeatfiled merits is liable to be and is h^ admission state. ct>»i^f<n<fl'i'HTR'^ff ^ f^^ <p3i^i< ^'srf^n'^STT^T •om appearance when the suit irgo Is placed on the Court vide ienttime to appear and answer |case, it is not indispute that the Ihearing and had also sufficient |)lteation. The appellant in his p.P.C. had taken agroundtiiat ?erved upon himwhich js found , 1 do not find any inflrmity or [by the appettant being devoid of reby dismissed summarily on Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge T [Tfr^'^fe^