HIGH COURT OP JUDIGATURECHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRIT PETITION N0.6577of 2005 PETITIONER Vs. RESPONDENT Bahadur Singh, aged about54 years, son ofShri Jagmohan Singh Rajput, oceupaUon - Service, consteble, Departmentof Police.Raigaiti, rssident ofvillage Chhote Aatarmuda, Raigarh, Tahsil and DistrictRaigarh (C G.) The State of Chhattlsgarh, through: Coltector, Raigarh (C.G.) Present: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned coynsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on 2nd January,2006) The petitioner herein filed Civil Suit No. 67-A/2002 in the Courtof Second Civil Judga Class II, Raigarh. The said Court decreed the suit ex-parte. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent herein.namely, State of Chhattisgarh represented by (he Collector, Raigarh made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setUng aside Uie ex-parte decree. It isstated that the petiUoner herein has filed his objection to that application of the State of Chhattisgarh. In addition, tte petitioner filedan independent appllcation under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to dismiss the application of the State of Chhattisgarh ,ffled under 'Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in ffmme as not maintainabla fbr the reason that the application under Order 9 Rute 13 CPC is presented by the Tahsildar, Raigarh, who is not authbrized to present such application on behalf of the State Govemment. The trial Court having heard that application fiied by the petitioner underSection ^^ ^'^ -a.- 151 CRC and without finding ahy merit in it by the order impugned In this writ petition dismissed the application ofthe petitioner. (2) Ihaveheardleamedcounselfortheparties. The Court below has polnted out that the appllcatlon flted under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was presented on behalf of the Dlstrict Cotlector but through his aufriorized agent, the Tahsildar and that the applicaCon also bears the seal and signature of ttie Tahsildar, Ralgarh. In that view ofthe matter, the Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner fited undsr Section 151 CPC and listed the case on 19.01-2006 for consideration of the appllcation filed by the State of ChhatUsgarh under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The view taken by the Court below is un-exceptionable. It is not that Uie District Collector himsetf should personally present the appllcaUon or swear to the tacts stated In ttie appllcaUon on the basis of the records. It is open for him to authorize ie Tahsildar, a Revenue Officer, woriong under him to awear to the factsstated m the applicaUon. ft needsto be noticed that th® District Coltactor himself represente the Stete of Chhattisgarh even in the application filed under Order 9 Rute 13 CPC as pointed out by thetrial Court. It is not that the State of ChhatBsgarh is represented by the Tahsildar, Raigarh. Looking from any angle, there is no merit in thls wrltpetltion filed underArttele 227 of the Constitutton. The sam'e is, therefore, dismissed, however, with no costs. Sd/- ^higfjustice judge ^ (/*- |!;':,i'!l ^i!i;!l!];':i^'" ,.V^1K.-;W.WSE