L-B£^^S^!£^L^1^JM^^^I1 ^SS^^^^?S1&^L.-^JS^ ^^,^%^ 13Ni¥ >^J^i-»SS^§3ffiL^i*.^^^-/2007• AEPLICAW ^^.[^ ^•^^ss^^" p,essRtef' "V^ll^^--" Dated..--^-" ^^^v Notiar Slngh son ofMaagal C^ste Gond^ aged ataout 42 years r©sidentof village C5ias?a,r Gaon Ibst Maca> P*S» ^mbagarh Chowki Bistxdot Rsdnandgspn. ( C^ <^)| •VERSUS NOW ^PPLIC^TTS !• Bl rbal son o f Jagdev easte Gbnd aged 32 y©ars donden Stngh son of Jagdev aged 3o yeargi ^sth residents of vlllage Chawar ^aan Ibst Marra Tahsil Mohla MsttlRajn an ^gs^n ( C^ <%l) ^ 3g^ State of Chhattlsgash Tha&ugh: '-^. ^^li^ Golleetor E&strlGt o ffi.ee R^nandgaon (C<;<3|) ^SVXSKfflT IMJ^iL^S2_Cl30IT_JlL5_QlLTIlB_3lDEAF,ffiY30'd ^SBeSISlSS-lSQS^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT Civil Revision No. 122 of2007 : Nohar Singh Versus RESPONDENTS : Birbal & Others ^ CF/IL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF TOE CODE OF CIVIL_PROGEDURE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11.01.2011) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The applicant's/plaintifif suit was dismissed in default on 17.12.2004 for plaintiffs non appearance. The applicant/plaintiff preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for its restoration immediately after five days i.e. on 22.12.2004. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. The above dismissal order was afiBrmed by the appellate court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 28/2005 vide its order dated 30.06.2007. There-against the instant revision has been preferred. 3. A bare perusal ofthe order impugned would reveal that the suit was dismissed in default on 17.12.2004 for plaintiffs non appearance and immediately thereafter within a period of five days, an application under Order 9 Rule 9 ofCPCfor its restoration was filed inter-alia on the ground that the date of hearing as intimated to him by plaintiffs counsel was 20.12.2004 and not 17.12.2004 and due to above reason the plaintiffcould not appear in the court and therefore he remained absent and the case was dismissed for non appearance. The ground taken by the applicant/plaintiff appears to be genuine and sufficient for his non appearance and in the considered opinion of this court, both the courts i.e. trial court as well. as the first appellate court have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested to them, resulting in miscarriage ofjustice. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The suit preferred by the applicant is restored to its origirial number subject to payment ofa cost ofRs. 500/- payable to defendant No. 1 & 2 within a period of one month from today. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 07.02.2011 . On that date, the applicant shall appear along with his witnesses and the trial court shall proceed to record the evidence of applicant and to decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. No order asto ^ costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge