ig BEFORETHE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHt W.P.(2271No. of2010 PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS o. 'ly ..^" sy ,-ys' y ; ^a^ ^ ^'~. <. 'e / 'w i'^',1^ /' 1. Sumitra D/o Bhajju, aged about 35 years, by Caste-Rajwar, R/o Village-Barbaspur, Thasil- Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Krishna Kuniar, S/6 Ramdhan, aged about 20years, 3. Ram Kumar, S/o Ramdhan, aged about 18 years, 4. Shiv Kumar, S/o Raindhan, aged about 15 years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramdhan, S/o Agarsai, aged abtiut 45 years, (Then minor but now major) 5. Mukesh Kumar S/o Ramdhan, aged about 12 years, Mioor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramdhan, S/o Agarsai, aged about 45 years. 6. Kashinath S/o Ramdhan, aged about 9 years, RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS 7? Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramdhan, S/o Agarsai, aged about 45 years. VERSUS 1. Phulsundari, W/o Sonsai, aged about 45 years, Caste-Rajwar, R/o Village-Augustpur (Dhodha), Post-Krishnapur, (Kalua) P.S. & Tahsil-Surajpiir, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) l.B Ramsundari, W/o Vishwanath, aged about 46 years, caste- Rajwar, R/o Village-Bimidand, Post-Chandramedha, P.S. Pratappur, Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) l.C (a) Sathuratn, S/o Balluram, aged about 45 years, by caste- Rajwar, l.C(b) Amarsai S/o Sathuram, aged about 18 years, by ca'ste- Rajwar, l.C(cj Babaji, S/o Sathuram, aged about ISyears, by'caste- Rajwar, Through Mindr Natural Guardian %> (?• Father, Sathuram S/o Ballu Ram. l.C (d) Rabina, D/o Sathuram, aged about 10 yeasr, by caste- Rajwar, Through Minor Natural Guardian Father, Sathuram S/o Ballu Ram. 2. Ganesia, D/o Late Bhajju, aged about 50 years, by caste- Rajwar, 3.A Sonmet, D/o Chhota Manraj, aged about 40 years, by caste Rajwar, R/o Village-Ganeshpur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3.B Rama, S/o ChhotaManraj, aged about 38 years, by caste-Rajwar, R/o Village Barbaspur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3.C Laxm.an, S/o Chhota Manraj, aged about 38 years, by caste Rajwar, R/o Village-Girverganj, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3.D Jeet Rai, S/o Chhota Manraj, aged about 36 years, by caste- !iU 3.E 3.F Rajwar, R/o Village-Barbaspur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Somari, D/o Chhota Manraj, aged about 34 years, by caste- Rajwar, R/o Village-Datima, P.S.- Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpiir, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Devmuni, S/o Chhota Manraj, aged about 30 years, by caste Rajwar, R/o Village Rampur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Sonia, D/o Late Bhajju, aged about 42 years, by caste-Rajwar, Plaintiff no. 2 85 plaintiff 4 are resident of ViUage Barbaspur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur) Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 01. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONERS : DEFENDANT N0. 8 5. <. HIGiiGQURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBH-ASPUR .7i Sumitra and others. DEFENDANTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE IA CONSTITUTION OF {Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. AaarwaS, J.) : Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ashok Kumar Shu|<!a, counsel for respondents No.1 to4. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER <Passed on 23rd dayof March, 2011) W consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Legality and propriety of the orders dated 12-10-2010 and 28-10-2010 passedby Civil Judge, Class-l, Surajpur, Djstrict 'Surguja are under assaii byway of insta'ht petition filed under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution of india. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 08-10-2010, the matter was fixed ^ for plaintiffs' evidence. In the earlier part of the day on 08-10-2010, the plaintiffs and their witnesses were absent. Later on, the pjaintiffs and their v^itnesses namely Sadhuram and Ganeshia Bai were examined and the matter was adjourned for their cross- examination on petiiioners' request and case was fixed on 12-10-2010. On that date, the petitioners again prayed for adjournment. The same was rejected, triai'Court gave opportunity upto 4-30 P.M., sinceat 4-30 P.M., the petifioners or ~-IS* , •^|@|;^^^'. I. T ^ J a" Kvr .23- their counsel dld not make their appearance, they were proceeded ex-parte. The plaihtiffe ciosed thelr case and the casewas fixed for flnal argumentson 13-10-2010. On 13-10- 2010, the petitioners applied under Order 9 Rule 7 or CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 28-10-2010,the same was dismissed by the trial Court. 4. I have perused the orders ofthe Trial Court. 5. Although there was fault on the part 6f the petitioners in as much as the petitioners did not appear on 12-10-2010 but tooking tothe factsand circumstances ofthecase and lookingto the fact that the valuabie rights of the petitioners are involved in the case, in the considered opinion of thls Court, the orders impugned deserve to beset aside. The'respondents can be compensated by imposing cost upon the petitioners. 6. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the orders impugned are set aside subject to payment ofcostof Rs.1000/- to the respondents. The trial Court is directed to permlt the petitioners to eross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs and also permit the plaintiffe to examine any other witnesses and the defendants to examine their witness and thereafrer to proceed with thecase in accordance with law. 7. The parties are directea to appear before the Trial Court on 18-04-2011. 8. The writ petition is dii of aGGordingly^ Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge