m, ^,/A ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WmT PBTITION (2271 N0. 3906 OF 2011 PETITIQNHtS 1. 2. RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. Kunwariya Bai, W/o T'ijram, aged about 52 years, Caste Sataami, R/o Village Khurdur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Defendant No. 1). Kunjmati, W/o Antru Raca, aged about 45 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Bhavakapa, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Defendant No. 2) Sukhnaadan, S/o Feakuram, aged about 38 years, Caste Saatami, R/o Vfflage Ranisagar, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (PIaintifi) Diikala Bai, W/o Narbad, aged about 37 years, Caste Sataami, R/o ViUage Karva, Tahsfl Kota, District Bflaspur (C.G.). pefendant No. 3) Koda Bai @ Leel Bai, W/o Late Fenkuram, scged about 5S years, Caste Satnami, R/o ViUage Kachhar, Tahsil and District Bilaspiir (C.G.). (Defendant No. 4) State of CIihattisgarh, Through the CoUector, Bilaspur (C.G.). (Defendant No. 5) t'i! WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 227 OP THE CON8TITUTION OF LNmA. (8B :Hon'ble M».T.P.Shuma, J.) Present:- Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedoa 21/07/2011) 1. By ftus pctition under Ardcle 227 of the Coastitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propnely of thc order dated 2/5/2011 passed by Civit Judge, Class-11, Kota District BUaspiu- (C.G.) iu Civil Suit No, 4A/11 wbereby Court below has dismissed tbe application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CivU ProcedTire Code for setting aside fh.e exparte proceeding passed agamst fhe petitioners dated 23/ 2/2011. -^ o 2. As per order unpugued Court below has proceeded exparte agninst the petidoners ou the ground that petitioners have refused to receive the Sttuuuons. Application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Cinl Procedure Code and its reply reveal that persoiial semce bas not been efFected upon the petitioners on the basis of aUeged report of Process-server fhat petitioners have refused to accept the service. Court below has proceeded exparte still Court below has fixed the case for written statenient of other defendauts. No substantial pK>gress has been made in the trial and proceeding stiU at the stage offlmg ofwritten stateiaent 3. In order to set aside the exparte proceeding defendants are required to show good cause for their non-appearaace aud not suf&cieat cause. Without adduciug evidence or providing opportunity of adducing evidence, it was not proper for Court to arrivc at a findiag fhat petitioners have refused to receive suuunons. ConsMering the fact fhat stHl case has been fixcd for written statemcnt for ofher defendaats, I do not find aay necessily of hearing to opposite party aad it would be just and proper to provide at least one opportuuily of ffling written stateinent to the petitioners. ^ 4. Consequentty, petition is allowed. Order iiapugned relating to dismissal of appBcation of settiug aside exparte procecding filed by fhe petitiouers is hereby quashed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/- wifhin 15 days fiiom today to the plaintiffi-e. respondent No. 1 before the trial Court. Petitioners shall file writteu statcinent wifhin 15 days fboni today before the trial Coiut. 5. I.A. No. 01 disniissed sununarilv. No order as to costs. Certi&ed copy today. Sd/- T.P. Sharina Judge