(D IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f227) N0. 3lo2-OF 2011 PETITIONER Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Defendants ^ ^•»' ^'•^•^ ^••^y ^^'^ ^.^•"" ^ Mohd. Sayeed Ahmad, S/o Late Jahur Ali, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Raghunathpur, Police Station and Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mohd. Kasim, S/o Late Jahur Ali, aged about 60 years, R/o Village Raghunathpur, Police Station and Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 2. ^ Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BiiASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 3102 of2&1i PETIT!|ONER RESPONDENTS Mohd. Sayeed Ahmad Yersus Mohd. Kasim & another. I l' WRIT PETlTiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITU!ON OF INDiA • (SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present : Mr. VX. Pandey, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, PL for the State/respondentNo, 2. ORALORDER (20.06.2011) Heard. 1 instant petition, filed under Articie 227j of the Constitution of indla, calis in question thelegality and prQpriety of the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by First Civll Judge, Class i{, Ambikapur, Surguja in Civil Sult No. 9-A/2011 whereby and whereunder respondents'/defendants' application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC wasallowed. 2 Brieffacts ofthe case areasunder:- PetJtioner/plainfiff filed a'suit against the respondent No. 1/defendant on 18.1.2011; respondent/defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-pa/fe, as according to the service report he refused to accept the summons. Defendant No. 1 appeared in the Court on 8:3.2011 andthereafteron 24.3.2011 moved anapplication forsetting asids the ex parte order passed against him in the case, on the ground that summons were never served upon him. Leamedtrjal Court after hearing both the partles holding :the defendant No.1 ablyshown sufficient grounds for his non-appearance on the dateof hearing, set aside the ex-pa/t^ prpceedings and permitted him to.fiie writtenstatement on the next date of hearing. v^ i .1 ' k^ :1'^ 3. Shri V,K. Pandey, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehementiy argued that the learned trial court, without entering into the merit of the matter, has set aside the ex-parte proceeding against the respondent No.l/defendant and has granted time to fiie written statement,whjch is not sustainabie in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order impugned, 1 do not find any substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. The defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte in the month of January, 2001, on the ground that he refused to receive the summonsof case and immediateiy after 60 days the appiicatjon was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that the process server has recorded his refusai without affixing any copy of the summons at his piace of residence and thus the summons were not duly served upon him and the trial Court has rightiy set aside the ex-parte proceeding against the respondent No.l/defendant and has granted time to fiie written statement. it is trite law that the court shouid be liberal whiie dealing with the such a.pplications. 5. It is weit settiecLprincipie of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Artide 227 ofthe Constitution of india, shouid refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, Jilega!lty or jurisdictiona! error is writ large on the face of the record, whlch is not in the present case. 6. Therefore, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dlsmissed. [ Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Ir^