Swag 55mm N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227.)N0. ‘v\_‘%r(;k1 /2010 / ETITIONERS: 1) Ramlal S/o Shri Sadhu (DEFENDANTS No.1 85 2) aged about 66 years, 2):“ Bamnin D/o Shri Ram lal aged about 4O years . Both are resident of Village Khisora, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS 1. Nageshwar Prasad S/o Ayodhya PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS Prasad, aged about 61 years, by No.3, 4, 5 8r, 6 Caste Tiwari, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Khisora, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) (PLAINTIFF) 2. Ramnath S/o Nanku, aged about 50 years, (DEFENDANT NO.3) 3. Nand Lal S/o Sagar aged about 35 years, (DEFENDANT No.4) Both respondent No. 2 85 3 are R/ o Village Khisora, Tah Navagarh, Distt Janjgir—Champa (C.G.)o 4. Lalmani S/o Kalika Prasad, aged about 6O years, By caste Tiwari, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Khisora, Tahsil Navagarh, a Distt Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Ramkunj Seepat Road, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, (C.G.) District Bilaspur (Defendant No.5) I P R @Eq State of Chhattisgarh Through : Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (DEFENDANT No.6 ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. V} X HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 4764 of2010 PETITIONERS : Ramlal & Another Versus : Nageshwar Prasad & Others RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Rajgsh Kumar Shanna, Advocam for the petiticners; ‘ Shri Rajneesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 1 appears on behalf of Shn’ Shailcndra Dubey, Advocate. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20.01.201 1) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order date 28.04201 0, d passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Navagarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa, in Civil Suit No. 8-A/07, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 9 Rule’7 of CPC was dismissed. The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners on 05.12.2009 for their non appearance. The petitioners filed an application on 21.01.2010 for setting aside ex-parte order on the ground that due to agricultural work they could not appear before the court on 05.12.2009 and their counsel was busy in some other court. The trial court, by order impugned, dismissed that application tiled by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 as time barred whereas, in law, no limitation is prescribed for hling application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte order. K( 4. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. The valid reason was assigned by the petitioners which was not considered by the Tn‘bunal while rejecting the application nled under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application ofthe petitioners. 5. In view of above, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 6. The impugned order dated 28.04.2010 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is allowed. The Tribunal shall proceed with the matter on itsfown merits n accordance with law. No order asto costs. i V\ Sdl— N. K. Agarwall Judge J Sahu