[N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 5^4^OF 2007 ?\. ^) PETITIONERS Plaintiffs v ^: ,<^ -£S^' ,....^^p:'-"" .^^n^'t ^ !.'•" c -' . Anupam S/o late Newton Albert , aged about 38 years, R/o Village Kotmikala, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur C.G. Anurag S/o late Newton Albert , aged about 30 years, R/o Village Kotmikala, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur C.G. Anukampanath w/o Satishnath, aged about 36 years, R/o Shahdol (M.P.) VERSUS Defendant no.l ^ Defendant no. 2 Defendarit no. 3 James Albert S/o Late Ijkel Farid Albert,Mission Prem Compound, Napier Town, Jabalpur f Dr. E.C. Daniel S/o Late F.H.Daniel, 852, North civil L4.ne Jabalpur , (M.P). f. State of C.G. through - The Collector , Bilaspur, (C.G.) -sq-—^i' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN T IN THE NATURE OF [ANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. ff ,/s"~^ 1 te**' y HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (C) No. 3945/2007 ^) PETITIONERS Anupam. and others Versus RESPONDENTS James Albert and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J PRESENT:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer, for the State. None appears for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. ORAL ORDER 1. 2. (21-2-2011) Heard on admission. Instant petition is directed against the order dated 12-3-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Pendra Road, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7/2005 affirming the order dated 31- 8-2005 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Pendra Road in M.J.C. No. 10/2001 and dismissing petitioners'appeal. Hence this petition. Indisputably, the suit was disa-nissed on 24-8-2001. The application under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for restoration of the suit was filed on 31st October, 2005 i.e. after expiry of period of limitation. No application praying for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause therefor has been filed. In such circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners as time barred. c^> Therefore, in view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no scope of interference in the impugned order. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge