^ HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURBCHIWmSGAmi: BNJteBPUR Writ Pettfion fcl No. 2345of2007 Petitioners 1. Smt Preety Gangey, W/o Dr. SudWr Gangey, age 34 years. 2. Dr.SudhirGangeysfoRameshChandra Gangey ag^j about 35 years. Both occupation are -Sai Clinic Hospital Utai.Bhilai Both residentofStreetNo. 12, Qr. No. 5/A, Sector-5 Bhilai, Teh. & District - Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondent DhanrajSingh tosh^p s/o Thakur Komal Singh aged about 37 year Oceupation - Contractor, residentofGandhl Chowk, UtaS The. And District Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THECONSTITUTIOMOF INDIA SB Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the peBtionere. ORDER (Passed on this 16th dayofAprN,2007} By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the ConsUtution of Indla, the petttioners challenge the tegality and validtty of the impugned order cfated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P/7), passed by the 5th AdcWional Distriet Judge, Durg in Mjscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 8/06. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent filed the sut for recovery of Rs. 23.000/- in the Court of the 2"*^ Addifional Civll Judge, Class-1, Durg (M.P.). In absence of the appearance or representation on behalf of the petiBonere, the ex-parte judgement and decree was passed on 10.7.2002. The pefitionere filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of fte Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setttog aside the ex-parte judgement and decree on 10.1.M03 (Annexure PIS). The limitation under Article 123 of ttie Limitsrtion Ad, 1963 is 30 days for setting aslde fte ex-parte judgeraenl and decree. The 2<ri AddiUonal Civil Judge, Class-1, Durg vide order ,dgted 4.10^004 (Annacure PIS) dismissed the applicatton filed by the petftioners on the greund that the applicaUon for setting a^de the judgement and decree was not filed in time. The peUtioners have nat submitled satisfactory ®q»lanafionfor delay of more than sb< monUis. Being s^grieved and dissafisfied with ttie order dated 4.10^004, the peUtioners preferred an appeal, being Misceltaneous Civil ^>peal No. 8/06, in the Court of the Sth AddiBonal EMstrict Judge, Durg. The 5'" AckliUonal Distnct Judge, Durg vide his order dated 28.22007 (Annexure P/7), after having examined th®facts and circumstances <rf the case, afRrmed the findings recorded by <he 2nd Additional Ch/ll Judge, Class-1, Durg and dismissed the sypeal aecordmgly. The petitioners have ffled this petiUon impugnii^ bdh ttie orders, passed by the courts below. The main contention of the peBBoneis are that the raoment petttloners came to know about passing of the ex-parte judgement and decree, they have moved e 2 Additional Civil Judge, Class-t, Durg wittiin a periodofSOdays. On perusal of the judgments and orders passed by the courts telow, it appeare that the petitfonere have been appearing wth his advocate invariably in the proceedings. There is no satlsfactory reasons as explained when ttie petitionere came to know for the first time aboid the ex-parte judgment and decree..>The peBUoners have faHed to file an apptication withln a period of 30 ds^s. The courts below have considered all the aspeets carefully and inaccordance withlaw. It is well srtUed prlnciple of lawthat under Article227 oflhe Con^tufion of India, this Court has jurisdicflon ofjudicial revtewoftheorder passed by ttie Court below, in the event, ttiere is manifest and apfarent error on th®face of the proc^dings based on Ihe clear Ignorance or utter disregard to the provislons of law or there is grave fallure of Justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can atso entertain the petitton in its supervisoiy jurisdicUon if there is pervefsily, irregulartty or lllegality in fte process ®fdecision, r»tin the deeiston ilself. As a resultand for the ressons menttoned hareinabove, no iiiterterence iswarranted. Thus, this peUtion is dismissed. B/- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihofri Judge