HJQKCQURTOFJU^CATURE^HHATBSQAPJi,;.BJLASf^ SiNQLE BENCH: HON'ELE SHRt S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETJTION No.3321 of 2005 PETSTSONER RESPONDENTS Vs. Smt. Qjrija Bai wife of Bharat La! Kurre, aged sboui 40 years, by caste Satnami, residentofvjijage Jarhapara, Kheda, Tah. Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) The AppeHate AuthQrity/Sub- DivisionaS Orfjcer (Revenue) Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Tilak Kosh'e, son of Batha! Kosh!e, R)'o viiiage Sonpuri, Tahsii Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.c3.) present: Shri P.K. Tulsiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhjr Verrna, Seamed courssei for the rssponderit No.2. Shri Utkarsh Verma; learned Oy. G.A for the State/ respondent No.1 ORAL ORDER (Passed o«22nd Deceniber 2QQ5) The Second respondsnt herein preferred an appea! to the f'rst respondent against order dated 14.1Q.2QQ4, passed by the Asst. Registration Officer, Bemetara, District Durg by which the Asst. Registration Qfficer has inc!uded the nams of the petitloner in th©voters !ist of Gram Panchayat, Qhorha. Tah. Navgarh, Dist Durg. The first respondent having entertained the appeal issued notlces to the petitioner •Smt. Girija Bai. Ths said notics was not ssn/ed on the pstitjonsr in psrson, but !t was a(!sged!y sen/ed on the husband of She petitioner. !t is the case of the petitiQp.er that since she was not sen/ed with the notice by th9 first respondsnt, she dsd not attend the proceedings 'njtiated by the -2- 31 first respondent and in the circumstance, ex-parte order was passed by the first respondent on 1Q.12.2004. !n the circumstance, the petitioner fited an appiication for setting aside ex-parte order dated 10.12.2004 and the first respondent has rejected the said appjication for setting aside the ex-parte order by hss order dated 21.06.2005, marked as Annexure-P/3. (2) Having heard the learned counse! for the parties,! am of the considered QpiniQp. that the petitloner has had no fair oppQrtunity to contsst the appeai preferred by the 2nd respondent before the first respondent. Admitted!y, the not'ce issued by the first respondent was sen/ed on the husband of the petitioner and not on the petitioner m person. !n that v'ew of the matter,! think it is fair that the petitioner should be glven a falr opportunity' to contest the appeal preferred by the 2 respondent before the first respondent on merit. On that short ground, I a!!ow the writ petition setting aside the order dated 21 .Q6.2QQ5 (Annexure- P/3) as wei! as ex-parte order dated 10.12.2004, marked as Annexure-P/1 and the appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent is restored to file of ths first respondent. The first respondent is dirscted to dispose of the appea! after giving reasonabJe opportunity to the petitioner as we!! as to the respondent. There shaH be no order as to costs. Sd/- CblefJustlce ^