T ^ TO THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUK. C.R. Np. _ '30-5_ /2003. APPLICAtn* PLAim'IFF / '?s^^ <»-'^^^- .'•'^7** <':;^^-"'" k'o'LTo5i- \.^..-? '^y1 A*v /NON-APPLlA^HTS DEFSNDANTS /•^? Balamdlaa d/o Luj.s Uraon, aged about 60 years, r/o village Jbingo, P.S. & TehsAl Rajpur» Distt. Surguja, e.G. through authorlsed person (Power of Attorney Holder) Rejlna Toppo d/o Karlus Toppo, aged about 60 years, r/o village Jhlngo, P.S. & Tehsll Rajpzir, Distrlct Surgaja, C.G. V__B S. _S U S_ Ktanari Parvatj. Toppo d/o Late Sanropp Oraon, age 32 years. Oecupatlon-service, origlnal r/o village Sahna Dand, P.0. PaSSai, Tehsi.1 Kananujganj, Distt. surguja, C.G. (ORIGINAL D?D. N0.3) 2. '^-'•5 '?• The State of Oihatt-lsgarh, throagb Colleetor, surguja, Anbikapur, G.G. (ORIGIHAL BPD. N0.2) CTTCL REVISION UNDER SBCTION ^15 0V THB CODE OF CIVIX< PROCEDURE^ -— 0 sn^rqiT feNisn^r soiiti ulen 3^ •<(1<IIC1^, ®Tn<rl'16,IslCIIUy 3ll^l 4?l<h —.<^:^.-...'3..0.^...._ llllrtlsblith •"•<•••••••••••"•••• g^ 200L? Rl'b.d 311^1 ^WIWdf^tT 17.03.a)05:- Smt. Hamida Skldiqui, lefamed Shri A.K.Prasad, toamedl Shri J.D.Bajpal, leamed counsel for the applicant. leouns^ for respondent No.1. c|ounsel for the State/respondent No.2. This revision has beenl aggrieved by the order dated No.02/2003 by the tlnd Addl.( arislng out of order dated 20.1; by the Civil Judge,Class-lt^\m|Ml<apw,Didrict-Sarguja appeal proferred by the non-a()pllcant the Chfll ,ludge,Class-ll cRsmissi|ig partedecree passedagain^ th+ judgment and decree dated t2.( has been set aside; namely Balamdina before the know about ex-parte decree regardlng the ex-parte decree, tb|'i|?<'l'il1-l WRffffte<<t <RlWK ERSfRlITMI^T prefwed by the appBcant as sha is 101.07.2003 passed m Misc. Chfl Appeal plstrict Judge, Ambikapur.Dlstrict-Sarguja, ;.2002 passed to MJ.C.(CMt) No.05/2001 and by whieh the No.1 against the or<tor passed by the applteatton for setting askle the ex- non-appBcants, was allowed and ex-parte ()9.2001 passed by the Chnl Judge.Ctess-ll Brief fects of tha case |s that the suil was fited by the appBcant trfal Court and an ex-parte decree on 12.09.2001 was passed agaifist the non-applicant. The m»n-applicant namely Ku.Parvati Toppo flled a|l appUcaUon underOrder 9 Rute 13 ofthe C.P.C. along wth an applicatloji under Seetion 5 of tlw LimitaUon fist on 31.10.2001 avemngthat st»w^s suffering fromjaunclice and she eameto jbeing passed only on M.09.2001 and ^he appHed for certffied copy <rf the same on 11.10.2001. Thereafter, thej non-applicantapproached her A*oeate and flled the instant appUeatic|n for setting adds the ex-parte decree passed on 12.08.2001 and this ^pplleatlon was opposed by the applleaA (^^!) XI-HC-22 STI^TW f^iwsn^i siit|i°t>«lga 3^ •<ii<ii<n<i, s9Tnu'iio,fslc1iy^'l, 3TI^?TVRf^ HIWII sn*<i<t) ^-.<?.-/i-..5.i9.S V^ 2003 Rl'b«d aii^iewiwfffcr 3^- q>l<<Fcl<(1-f H11CTT¥te^t<Rl'«:K tSsif^iTsn^r Leamed CMI Judge disnipssed the applleatlon on the ground that the r^ison assigned by tha no^appUcant for settlng aside the e»-parte decree is hot sufficient and reasf»nfor detay in fiTmg the appeal Is also not sufficient and accordingly, dismi^sed the application flled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and as a | cohsequence, the appBcation for setting C(etA«- 1 aSWethe ex-parte was also dismfssed. /^ainst the abwe order, Ihe non-appBcant preferred a misc, appeal and by the impugned order the i^iisc.appeat was allowed against whieh tha present revision has been ffled. Leamed counsel for the ^PpNcant ftas mainly challenged tWS ordw onthe groundthat the trial Coui^ passed an order dated 20.12.2002and dismtssed the application flled 4"d®rSectton 5 ofthe Limitation Aetand the appllcatioh for settlng asi^e the ex-partedecree has not been dismlssed on merits. Therefore, 43 Rute 1 (d) oftheC.P.G. as W revision agalnst this prctor passed In reply to the cortentton ttet whlte^lismissjng tfteapplicai the CMI .Judge also cBsmssed C.P.C and theretwe appeal wa; (d) of C.P.C. and the same was no appeal w»smaintainabte as per Onter e non-applioant ought to have pwferred a by the Ch^Judge. t>fthe appllcart, the non-appllcant submits (ion under Section 5 ®fthe Lmttatien Act, the a 'icatlon under Ordar 9 Rule 13 ^ rightly preferred under Order 43 Rute 1 (naintainable. have heard teamed coun^el for the respertive partws. (Iftt^^) XI-HC-22 sn^rgir feWSfI^T a>*iit> yfca KmciTaiiif) 3^ •<41<IIM<1, STflu'16, Rlclltf^< 3ll^?IM5|<*» ..^.^..{?.p^.. fl^ 2003 R^ 3fi^i swiwsfer 3~' <tll*ltcl<f)-t 1|t|<1>"iffe^ft<R]«K ^Slf^ITSnS^T The contentlon of the ak?pllcant that sinee the appBeation under Sectfon 5 of the Limitation Act ^was dismissed, the twn-applicant ought to have preferred a revisiQn undei) Section 115 of the C.P.C., has no forca because the effeet of the ordl dismisslng Uie applicant under appllcation Tpr setting aslde ex-j BF passed by the Cwil Judge, Class -II Order 9 Rule 13 ef C.P.C. is appealabte under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of (p.P.C. and thegreund for dismissal of the parte deeree was that the appfleart coutd not eiqilain the delay and thereliare, in my opinion, the teamed A.D.J. has not commttted anyiltegality by eittertaining the appeal. Leamed eounsel ftw the jion-appllcant re^ng upon the Judgment of the Apex Gourt reported in 2002 MRSWVaiW in the mMerofBsSlMt SBO a//a»Rwn WSrtft Sahu a»idfothws Vs. OotowcttaB Sao w»dotbws ^^— — - submits that tHe mattw of setti|ig aside ex-parte decrse is siAJect to the satisfaction of the dourt when be Merfered in exercise of the the C.P.C. Even teamedcoun^i (here is sufflolent grwind and B should hot t-evisional jwiscfldion under Sectfon 115 of |el TOT the appBeantdoes netadTOnce any arguments that tfte appellato |court has commttted any lltegaUty white recordinga flnding oftnterits. 1 In view of the above present revlslon and tt accordlngly. cfrfeumstances, there is no substance in the desenfes to b®dlsmlssed and It is tfismissed Sd/- DHDtENDRA MISHRA Judge |SB^?8<ii^)