V 1?” :w, $ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G) WRIT PETITION227 Ho. > 31/! OF 2010 PETITIONER:- ‘ /Sudhir Khandelwal, S/ o Vishnu Swamp DEFENDANT No.3 Gupta, aged about 58 years, r/o Gondpara, Bilaspur, Tehsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- / 1.Smt. Usha Khandelwa1,W/o Shri D.P Khandelwal ,‘aged about 6O years, r/o _ ;ELC5V)I\¥“E£_ L-3/21, D.L.F, Phase 2, Guargaon (Haryana) /2. Girdhari S/o Tekchand, aged about 45 years. \ /3. Radhakishan, S/o Magchand, aged about 47 years, Both 2 85 3 C/o Vicky General Stores, Sanichari Bazar, Bilaspur, Tehsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench Pnt J Hon’ble Shri rasha Kumar Mishra, Writ Petition (227) No.594 of 2010 Sudhir Khandelwa! Defendant No.3 Versus Smt Usha Khandelwal and others/ Respondents Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri Shailendra Soni, counsel forthe petitioner. O R DE R (9m February, 2010) The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on 17.12.2009 rejecting his application (Annexure P/5) by which he made a prayer for setting aside the ex parte and givihg an opportunity to cross—examine the plaintiff. 2) In the impugned order, learned trial Court has observed that earlier the defendant / petitioner was declared ex parte, which was set aside on the application moved by him, however, he is repeatedly remaining absent on the date when the plaintiff, who is an old lady coming from Gurgaon, remains present for rV recoding her evidence. Neither the application tiled earlier on 24.08.2009 (Annexure P/4)’nor the subject application filed on 08.12.2009 (Annexure P/5) appears to be supported by an \iaffidavit of the concerned defendant. r i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ % 3) In the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the defendant’s prayer for setting aside ex part9 on the date when the plaintiff was examined. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or manifest iilegaiity while rejecting the petitioner's application. 4) The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/l— Judge Mishra I Prasha‘“ Kumar subbu