A^ IN THB HIGH COURT OP CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR (C.0.1 W N0. --^-^ OF 2006 APPLICANTS DBPBNDANTS l](a) Akhatar Mohammad S/o Yaar Mohammad ^^) Aged about 29 years, f(b) Afajal Mohammad S/o Yaar Mohammad, Aged about 24 years, (c) Shamshir Mohammad S/o Yaar ^ Mohammad, Aged about 17 years, (d) Aksar Mohammad S/o Yaar Mohammad, ^ Aged about 13 years, through- Balicourt reader First Civil Judge, class-2, Raigarh (e) Asalam Mohammad S/o Yaar ^" Mohammad, Aged about 11 years, through- BaK court reader First Civil Judge, class-2, Raigarh (f) Widow of Mo. Aafran Yaar Mohammad, Aged about 47 years, (g) Imaran Begam D/o Yaar Mohammad, ^ Aged about 28 years, (h) Mo. Ajamer Begam W/o Kadar I<han D/o ^"' Yaar Mohammad, R/o Antabeera (Orissa) (i) Mumtaj Begam W/o Esup Beg, Adarsh Chowk, Raipur (2) Widow of Mo. Tarabi Anwar Mohammad, ^ R/o Turkapara Raigar^i (3) Heirs ofTaskin (aFSultana Wd/o Tdskin Mohammad, Aged about 19 ycars, R/o Turkapara, Ralgarh (M.P.) ,^' VBR8US NON-APPLICANT KLAINTIFF ^ Mohammad S/o Peer Mohammad ^ Aged about 55 years, at present R/o Sariya, Tahsil Sarangarh, District- Raigarh v^" CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^-ljch 3T1^T 5h4-iich <M^a '^ET ^HId^l, ^•nl<-i^i(o, f^Krll^y 3?I^T TT^ HW^\\ ^^^———'—-————^^ ^^ ^ •^•^T' ^^ '^RTT8[R ^Tf^T 25.04.2006 Shri S.K. Tiwari, iearned coun Heard cn admission, ^el forthe appiicants. haMe The applicants/defendants hap against the impugned order dated Civil Judge.Class-iS, Ralgarh In M.|J Civll Judge aiiowlng .the appiication'- has restored the civii suit 14W93 to preferred the instant civi! revision 114.02.2006 passed by iearned Fjrst I.C.No. 10/05 by whlch the learned. lunder Order 9 Rute 9 of the C.P^C. i|ts originai number. ap|p Learned counsei for the dlsmissed by the trial Court on'/l adjournment sought by the non-appj was not sufficient and he was not pr4 himself was not present on that •ailowed theapplication preferred b^ the same reasons assigned by'him suitwas dismissed. 1 have heard Searned counse! T'ne leamed Civi! Judge after) opportunity to adduce the evjdence| recordi.ng ©frndlng'that the reasons for his non-appearance on 17,04.19^7 cn 17.04.1997 because cn the ne>t-| UI-Zuha was schecluSed and ;he. wafe were sufficient. .FrQm of th.^ <=M^f<n^ri 'RTR^ff'^ f^^ <psi<^i< '^^Tf^FTsn^r iicants submits that the suit was 17.04.1997 on the ground that the jicanVplaintlff for his :non-Bappearance (^secutlng the his case diiigentty as he 41ate. However, iearned Civi! Judge the non-applJcanVpSaJntiff .acceptlng |or his absence on the date when the fo.r the appiicants/defend'ants. . |hearing the parties and affording the has passed the impyg.ned'.Qrder by\ ^ssigned by the non-appiicanVplaintiff thathe couid not appear Inperson. |day i.e. 18.04.1997 the festiva! of Id- busy in preparatlon of the festivai, impugned order this Court is of the [Tft^ ^R^^ p XI-HC-221 ^n^r-^T Rrii<=h s^^ 5t)^i<=h <yf^a ^ ^^r ^ii^i<ri<4, ^Til^^co, 1^rayA/ 3:niOT "q^? c.p. t^o.s'sy *<l^c(ll sb^icb •M 200 fdl-b^ .opinipn that the iearne'd .Civil Judj materia! irregularity in passlng the c-alled for in.this revisio'n. :The insl th.e motion' itself and itis acc^ <=(>)j^f<n^1y1 tTTR^Tf ^ [^^1 ipsi^K '^3Tf^W37T^T 30 has not cornmitted any jltegality. or Impygned order and oo interference is tant revision deseives to be dismissed )rdingly dismissed^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^ ^[^^