IN THE'HIGH COURT Of CriHAi iAUAiu7^T ^lILASPUR CIVILREVISIONNO. s-^ /2011 CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. APPLICANT (PLAINTIFF) ^- <s^^ MOHSIN ALI, S/0 MOHD. ISMAIL VANAK (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL -REPRESENATIVES 1) SMT FIZZA BAI WIDOW OF LATE MOHSIN ALI, AGE 64 YRS 2) HOZEFA VANAK, S/0 LATE MOHSIN ALI, AGE 36 YRS 3) ALI ASGAR VANAK, S/0 LATE MOHSD^ ALI, AGE 34 YRS ALL R/0- NEAR MADINA MASJID, GOL BAZAAR, BILASPUR (C.G.) v/s NON-APPLICANT (DEFENDANT) SURENDRA VASUDEV, S/0 SHRI BRIILAL VASUDEV, AGE 55 YRS, DIRECTOR BOOK HOUSB, R/0 TIWARI CHAAL, JHARHABHATA BILASPUR (C.G:) BEING AGGREIVED BY THE<ORDER DATED 03-02-2011 PASSED rrd BY IHro CIVIL JUDGE CLASS II, BILASPUR ES M.J.C. "SURENDRA VASUDEV V/S MOHSIN ALI". THE APPLICANT PREFERSJTHIS^CIVIL REVISION ON THE FOLLOWING FACTC AND GROUNDS: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 50 of 2011 APPLICANT Plaintlff RE8PONDBNT Defendant Mohsin Ali (Dead) through LRs VBRSU8 Surendra Vasudev (CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OP CR/IL PROCEDllgE) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Afisarwal. J.l Present : Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed oa 18.04.2011) 1. Legalily and propriety oforder dated 03.02.2011, passed by the Itlrd Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, in MJC Case No. 01/08, is under assaU in the instant revision. 2. Facts in brief are: applicant instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the non applicant. Non applicant was proceeded exparte and thereafter exparte decree was passed on 30.07.07. 3. Non-appllcant's application filed under Order 9 Rulq 13 of CPC for setting aside exparte decree was aUowed by the trial court holduig: In the suit notice date ofhearing was wrongly menlioned as 26.06.2007 in place of 29.06.2007 and fh.us, notice was not duly served upon the non applicant. 4. Having heard fhe counsel appearing for the applicant and having perused fhe order impugned, looking to fhe fact fhat court shoiild be liberal while dealtng with such type of 5. applications and also considering fhe fact fhat siiminon was not duly served upon fhe non-applicant, I do not fiiid any jurisdictional fflegality in the order passed by the court below leading to miscarriage of justtce warranting uiterference of fhls court under its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dlsmlssed. However, since the matter is old, it is expected that the trial coiirt shaU decide fhe suit expeditiously. No order as to costs. Sd/'- N.K-Agarawal Judge Sahu