-indrey -:'nsia 'jndrey '^uo(0o -j, ag •d- o/H 'AsqnQ -a'd-O/M •sjA 09 -3§V'iipinuiB.ipnwio •e ^ {'•&'@} -indrey -:-nsiQ 'jndrey 'Auojoo B^UIBS- o/M 'ruijBqs •yg -Q/A •sjA Q9-3§V'Btu-iBqg eqsey {•d'Vi} -ind^qBf -nsTQ 'jnd^qBp 'UAOj,-:qgiH o/a 'AsqnQ -d-A 0/M •sjA 09-3§V'MBiunaifea "y ^ /^y^-^ nll.4^2^1 ^»?~'°'^-J/ ti^»^»^y ^y.^^ssS:'' - '.SANvaNa^aa •T^ - :sxNgaNOdsaa •'sn s aaA: ('O'O) 'u^uiBqa -::3u;sia sg ITSqBJ, 'u^^iuBqa 'pire^g sng pio . '?(UBg iBJtuso 05 s^isoddo 'eu§Biui3g 'p^oy XBM-qSiH -'•O/'a 3-ir SAoqe sq; ipog 'UK.pVQ 'e.ipus'tssp UT-[S o/yw 'SJBS^ se-3SV 'iApsg BiaaguBg •luis 'lAp-BQ tfUBXl'e^ -3^^ 0/AV 's-iBsA g^-^noqe psSy ^'^'^ft ./••^^ ^¥' - ••ddlJ.lllVld -^. ^ 'iMpeo iBqBguBQ -tws •I/ - .-saaNouiAad Ta;s '9ooz; / ">ss'? - :'ON (3) NOUUSd XIHAt ^' • SI',MS (HavOSIAVHHO) andsv^Ia j,v HHVOSIAAVHH^) ^o j,anoo HOIH aH,L NI XI-HC-78 *fT*l(^l Sb+lich 3:5g'^rpn?pr, iSTfl.yis, Riciidy ...i^.ajL^^.e^ Vff 2006 ^} 3TT^?T 43|tt> (liclI^'s«t'iT) SII^T W R-fi<*i (raT3n^?Tstii SRTTWWfNsil^T tii<<fci<fl-i ii><i?]TfffS^)'<Rt+di< ^3rf^IT3Tl^r ^. •<>r/ • /f Stui J.A.Lohani, leam^d couiisel for the petitioner. The petitiouer by the u'^stant petition, beiag aggrieved by the inipugned order dated 2pth Septeinber 2006 by which the leamed Additional District Jludge, Dhauitari in. Civil Suit No. 18A/2005 aUowiag the appli| •ation under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC of respondents No. order dated 07.11.2005 aild writtea stateinent and partic tlie same order l-ejected fhe E Section 151 ofUie CPC. Leamed counsel for respondents reinaiiied abseil 07.11.2005 and 09.03.20061 beea proceeded ex parte. Ho^ application has been aUowed| file written statenient and withoiit aay sufBcieiit cause. I have heard leamed cd 1) O. !,3 & 4 has set aside Uie ex parte 39.03.2006 permitted fliem to file •ipate m. fhe proceedings aad by ipptlcation of fhe petitioner under the petitioner subinits that the 1 even after seri/ice of notice on as a result of which fhev have •ever, by fhe ixupugned order fheir and fhey have been pemiitted to participate in the proceediags un^sel for fhe petitioner. Froiu perusal of tlie iu|ipugned order it is observed tliat the said defen.dants/responclents were proceeded ex parte on fhe basis of endorseineitt i4 the registered notice that fhey refused to accept the sum^aons and QO suininons in the ordiaan' course were issiied|to fhe said respondents aad ftie r.i.u. Hi*<nr awr^i ^a' "iiiiicfH, »-rfl'M'is,Ridi'yy ^.^.e.^^.^^ 3<lS;?i 4acn ((^3g'^r) •'CTWI ^ -^ 'b. ^ N l!t)|t|tt1<l1-< WRTt' ff^S TiwSlT ^> sif^T STI^?T trial had not commenced tiU jthen. The trial Court considering the above facts has passe^i the iiapugned order. In the considered opinion ofthis Coi[u-t reasons assigned by fhe Court below for aUowing the appUca^ion for settiag aside the ex parte order appears to be reasonablj aot cause any prejudice to fh^ no iaterference is called for. substance, is disinissed. ^ aud justified aad fhe sarue does petitioaer/plaintifFaad fherefore hus, the petition beiag devoid of Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge P.T.O.