HIGH C5URT C'F CHHATTISGARH i3T BILA$PL¥R Writ P§tition ($1.223 Nc.?524 cf 291 D Fettibner Defendant No.3 Parmu Kosie, aged aboui 56 years, Sic Late. Uderam Kmla, rib Near 3harc5amaWir Subhashrwagar, Teiibandha, Raipur (CGJ Versus :._. Respondents Kunal Jayaswai, aged aboui 3'3 years, Sic Smi Vijay Kumar Jayaswai, rk: 45/4, Nehru Nagay, Ea$t Bhiiai, Tahsi! & District Durg (C.G.) Piamijff 2. Brij' Kosie aged about 60 years 3m Late Uderam Kosle, r/o Near Shardamandir, 3ubashnagar, Teiibana’ha, Raipur Eefendant NM 3. Teerath Kosie, aged abaut 5a yEars, S/e Late Uderam Kosie, Rlo Krishaknagar, vinage Jcra, Raipur, Tahsii & District Raipur Defendant No.2 Ful Singh Kosie, aged about 54 yaars, sk: Late Uderam, Kcsie, ric Krishaknagar, village Jam, Raipur, Tahsii & Di$trict Raipur. Defendant No.4 5. Shree Chand Kcsle aged about 52 years, s/o Late Uderam Kesla, r10 Quarter Ne.231, Krishak‘nagr, - Viffaga Jora,Raipur Defendant No.5 6. Santosh Kssie, aged abeut 50 yea:s Sm Late Uedram Kosle, r/o Subha§hnagan Telibandha, Rai‘pur, Tahsii & Distririct Raipur ../ 7. Defendant No.6 aubhas‘hkbsle, aged about 48 years, Slo Late Uderam Kosle, {la Krishaknagaf, viiiage Jbra, Raimr, Tahsii 8: District Raipur. Defendant Nail 8. Suresh Kosie, aged abcut 4S years, Sic Late Uderam Kosie, rlo Krishaknagar, vii£age Jora, Raipur, Tahsii & District Raipur. Dafandant M18 9. Late Kosie, aged! abcut 44 years, Die Late Uderam Koaie, r/o Krishaknagar, viiiage Jm‘a, Raipus’, Tahsii & Estriat Raipur. Defandani Nag i ”2,. 10. Smt.$ukhiya Bai, ageci about 8D years, Wd/o Late Uderam Kosle, r10 Krishaknagar, viliage Jora, Raipur. Tahsii & Di$trict Raipur. Defendani No.16 (Writ Petition under Artic!e 227 of the Ccnstituticn of ma‘ia) MLAKPrasad, counsei far the: peiitioner. MrPrateek Sharma, counsel far mspbndent No.1 . (SB: Hon’blg ML T.P. Shanna, J.) ORDER (1 2—9—201 1) . By this wit petition under Ariicie 227 of the Constitution of india the pe iiioner has chaHenged the iegality & proprieiy of the order oated 2.12.2010 passed by the gt“ Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Civii Suit Now/3&9, whereby the 9m Additional tristrict Judge haS‘ dismissed the application hied by the petitioner under Order 9 Ruie 7 oi the Code of Civii Procedure for setiing aside order proceeding ex—parte against him. . l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. . Learned oounsei for the petitioner submits that although the petiiioner has not taken proper care in filing the appiication within time on account of the fact that he was represented by his duly engaged couneei before the Court, but for setting aside the order proceeding ex-parte, t‘ne petitioner is not required to show sufficient cause and only good cause is required to Show by the petitioner. Learned cgmseitfucthher submits that that non—appearance of the party in fliing the application after considerahle time was on acoount of i misunderstanding that his counsel is represented him before the Court and same can be construed as good cause for setting aside the order. . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the petition and submits that alleged appiication has been filed after considerable time. The petitioner has not taken proper precaution, especially when he was not informed by the advocate for long time,.s'nows that the petitioner is so negiigent. . Considering the fact that this case was still at initiai stage and considering insufficiency of good cause, the writ petition is allowed, subject to payment of \AQ V 3"‘ cost of Rs.2000i~ to respondent No.1ipiaint5ff, within Ween days fmm today befcre the triai Court and mder reiating'to dismissai af application fiied by the petiticner under Order 9 Ruie 7" of rhe Code ef Cir/55 Procedure is hereby $ei aside. No order as to costs. 6. interim appiicetion stands disposed of. " Sdl- m , :I T.P. Sharmgé, ‘ Judge