H§GH CeijRT GF Ci‘iiiATTlSfqZ—“3RH AT 3iL§S§UR @ Wr§t @tition {Art.22?} Ne.1‘25’9 of 2M1 Petitioner Avmash Kurre, Son of Shri Ram Piaintiff Prasad Kurre; aged about 35 years; resideni of Sahupara, Gudhiyari, Raipur‘ District Raipur (CG) Versus i~2espondents 1. Dharam Singh Kurre, Son 0f Defendants Kalkatiya Kurre, aged 45 years, ‘ agfi Occupaion—Service, res§den€ of i Thakkar Bapa Ward: Gudhiyari, ’ Raipur (CG) 2. Panchram Kurre, son of Kalkatiya Kurre, aged abeut 4O years, ' Occupation-Agrmwturist. 3. Rashan Kumar KUrre, Son cf ’ ‘w Narayan Prasad Kurre, aged about 21 yeavs, Occupation—AQVicuitur§st. 4. Nand Kishcre Kurre, Son of Narayan Prasad Kurre, aged abcut 24 yeaysi f) Cecupation-Agricu:turist. k” 5. SmtPushpa Devi, widsw 0f Narayan Prasad Kurre, ageci about 42 years“ Occupation-Hausa wife. 6‘ Minor Shri Jyc’x%sh Kumar, Son 0f Narayan Praead Kurre, aged abaut Myears. 7. Miner Sanjay, $an of Narayan Prasad Kurre, aged about 8 years No. 5 & 7 both through their iegai guardian mother SmtPushpa Devi. 8. SmiiViaiibai, widow of Kaikatiya Kurre, aged about 8O years, occupation-house wife (No.1 to 8 are the iegal heirs of deceased defendant No.1—Kalkaiiya Kurre) No.2 io 8 are residents of Viiiage Kaihofiya, PS. Mungeli, District e . Biiaspuf (0G) Q. Smt.\iirja Bai, wife of Tiiak Ram Lahare,.daughter of Late Kalkatiya Kurre, resident of RS. Mungeii, 3 Dietrict Biiaspur (C.G.) 1G. Smi.Jambai,wife of notknown,aged about 45 years, occupation—house IJ‘ Rupkumar Gend{e, resident of Near house of Kalkatiya Kurre, Tnakkar Baba Ward, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 13. Shri Ganesh Ram Ajgaie, Son of o Shri Lokram Ajgaie, resident of D— MS, Rajeno‘ra Nagar, Ravigram, Teiibandha, Raipur. (if‘ rit Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of indie) MLEPS‘narma, oounsei for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for respondents. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. $harma, J.) ORDER {oRALr (25-7—201 1 ) 1. By this peiiiion under Ariicie 227 of the Constitution of indie the petitioner has chaiienged the iegaiiiy and proprieiy of the order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the 11‘“ Civii Judge Ciass-ii, Raipur in Civii Suit No.21 Ai09, setiing aside the proceeding dated 19.2.1998 passed against respondent New Smi. Jambai. i have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents fiied on beheif of the petitioner. Learned oounsei for the petitioner submits that after due diiigence and attempt made for service of summon to respondent No.10 Smt.Jembai, summon has been published in iocai newspaper in the year 19% and the Court has proceeded ex-perte on 19.2.1998, but after 12 years of such proceeding respondent No.10 has fiied appiication for setting aside ex—parte proceeding without tiiing any application for condonation of deiay. While passing such order without application for condonation of delay the Court beiow has committed illegality and aforesaid order setting aside ,2 A wife, resident of house of Kaikatiya 6" Kurre, Thakkar Baba Ward, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 11. Shri Chandra Kumar Ajgaie, Son of Shri Lokram Ajgaie; resident of Rajendra Nagar, Ravigram, Teiibandha, Raipur. $2. Smt.Champa Devi, wife of Shri K99 ex-parte proceeding, that too after lapse of 12 years which has adversely effected the right of the peiifioner. On the other hand. iearned counsei for the respondents opposes the p tttion and submits that in the absence of pereonai service, service by pubiieatfen was ordered by the Court beiow in the year 19328. Respondent No.10 is an iiiiterete iady, s‘ne was not informed by any of the person relating to such pubiioation of notice ano; when she came to know from other person, then she has fried appiication. No timitation has been provided r'er fiirng such appiication except the fact that. application may be med on the next date of hearing. The Court betow has afready passed the order of payment otcost considering the aforesaid deiay. 0rder impugned reveais that respondent No.10 has not been personatiy served and on the basis of pubitcation of notice the Court beiow has proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.10. As per provisions Order 9 Ruie 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendant agatnst whom Order 7 Rute 6 has been passed, such defendant is required to fiie apptication in terms of Order g Ruie 7 of the Code of Civit Procedure at or before such adjourned hearing and to show good cause. After considering such cause and the fact that no limitation has been prescribed the Court beiow has passed order. White passing such order the Court beiow has not committed any iiiegality warranting interference in exercise of revisionai jurisdiction. Consequentiy, the writ petition being devoid of merit is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (0. Ali pending appiications stand disposed of. u—«MW Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge