IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.-) ^. _. iil CIVIL REVISIQN N0^ V^_ OF^Qll m""t' :»- APPLICANT ^LAINTIFF yftMo- ptes®" Q^--""6}\ ^a NDN-APPLICANTS 'DEFENDANTS v ^-Neelkanth Son of Dayalu, aged about 45 years, Caste Teli, Resident of Village Pahariya, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS Smt. Neelbai D/o Dayalu Sahu, Wife of Mangatram Sahu, aged about 40 years, Caste Teli, Resident of Village Pahariya, Tahsil Janjgir. Presently residing at Kukda, Tahsil and Police Station Seepat, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.1908 ^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Civil Revision No. 12 of201 1 APPLICANT PLAINTIFF Neelkanth VCBSUS ,-»—"\ NON-APPLICANTS : Smt. Neelbai & another DEFENDANTS CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. <SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri VK Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advoeate for the State. ORALORDER CPassedon 25.01.2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. Legality and propriely ofthe order dated 04.01.2011, passed by IIad Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir, in MJC Case No. 53/2005, is under assail in the instant petition. 3. Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that without there being any sufficient cause for non appearance and despite due service of summons to respondent No. 1, he did not put his appearance in the case, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte decree was passed on 07.05.2005. Thereafter time barred petition was filed for setting aside ex-parte decree for which an affidavit was also filed after lapse of 16 days, and therefore, leamed Civil Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. L 4. The order impugned transpires tiiat the respondent No. 1 was not dully served through registered post, inasmuch as, the father's name was wrong in the notice sent by the plaintiffthroiigh registered post. On 25.07^004 the respondent No. 1 got information regarding such ex-parte decree. The trial court by taking liberal view, set aside the ex-parte decree and restored the case to its original number for decision on merits, which csmnot be said to be illegal or without sufficient cause. 5. In view of foregoing, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned does not call for any interference in exereise of revisionaljurisdiction ofthis court. 6. The revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial courf is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. No order asto costs. Sdi- N.K. Agarwai Judae SShu ^^M&^Ss^g^^-m^^^^^^^smm '^^^^^^i£'T'