/3>. ^ 1. HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BaASPVR W.P. (2271 HO. 4367/2011 PBTITIONBR/ Non-appMcaat No. 1 RBSPONOBWT8/ Res. 2 to 7 are Non- Applicants before CourtBelow VBRSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rajendra Kuanar^ S/o Gaiiesh Raaai, aged about 27 years, R/o ViHage Kukrcl, Baspara, Tahsil aad Distt, Dhamtan(C.G<). (DefendantNo. 1). Sanjay Kumar, S/o NaipayaM Siagh, caste Gk>ad, aged about 29 years, R/o ViBage Kutoel, Basi^ra, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). Yogesh Kumar, S/o Gaacsfa Ram, aged about 20 years. Purusbottaaa Lal, S/o Gaxiesh Raxii, aged about 15 years, miaor, TRuough natural giiardian mother Sawaa Bai aged about 49 years, W/o Ganesh Ram, Caste-Gond. Ganesh Ram, S/o Devi Sis^h e^ed about 52 years, Respoiident no. 2 to 4 are R/o ViUage Kukrel, Baspara, Tahsil aad Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). Shyama Bai,D/o Lafkhw, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Bafhcxia Ward, Dttanitari, Tahsfl and Distt. Dfa0ixita3di (C.G.). Dehuti Bai, D/o LafKtor, aged aboiit 15 years, mmor, fhipu^x iiatuxal guardiaa, mofher Shyama Bai, W/o Lafkhor, caste Gond, R/o ViMage Bathena Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. Dhaxutari (C.G.). State of Madhya Pradesfa now C<G., fhrough The Ccrilector, Dhaixitari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UWDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB COH8TITUTIOII 0» INDIA. (8B :Hon»bleBIr. T.P.SIuurma, J.) Present:- Mr. B.P. Singh, Advooate for fhe petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the Stafee/ respondent No. 7. Respondents No. 1 to 6 not noticed. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 08/08/a011) By fhis petition uader Article 227 of fhe Constituttoa of India petttioner has cfaallenged fhe legality and piopriety ofthe onier dated 3/5/11 passed by Civil Judge Class-2, Nagri C.G. in M.J.C. No. 03/07 aUowmg fhe applfeation fited --./'"^^ /'/^' '^ ..^ under Order 9 Rule 4 of ffae Cwil Piocedure Code, t908 fer reslioiatioa of suit dismisscd for want ofprosecution, 2. Leamed counsel for the petitk>ner subaaiite that petfction was fiiled after topse of more fhan 4 % monfhs wifhout aiiy application tinder S^ctioa 5 of fhe Limitation Act axid after 4 years of such appUcatioii respondeait No, 1 has filed appUcation for coiidonation of delay ia filiag such petitioa ia whicfa pieseiit petitioner has objected on accouat of xioii-explaiiation of siaeh delay but Coiart below has aUowed fhe application aad thereby comxmtted an illegaUly. 3. Order impugned, copy of fhe applfcations aad copy ofthe otder-sfaeet penised, 4. As per copy of the oxder impugaed 0x1 account of toraasfer of case finom tlie Court of Dhanitari to Caxiip Court Nagri respondeat No. 1 has not atteaded fhe Court situated at Dhamtari but attended the Court sitaated at Nagri aad Iwo dates were given by said Court at Nagri, iinless axid unttl fhis fact are disproved, it is difficult to hold that plaintfcGF has not fthed appHcation for restoration of suit disxmssed for want of prosecution wittihai 30 days ftom ttie date of kaowledge of dismissal of the eziit aiid was ffcted application for seAtmg aside dismissal and rcstoration of suit aad filmg appUcation zmder Sectioji 5 of fhe LiDaitation Act to save his side, respondent No. 1 has aot cemadtted any iUegaUty, While aUowmg fhe application Coiirt beloy haa not comndtted aay illegality requiring any mterference in exeroise of supeCTteory jijtrfc^iictlon, Consequentty, petition te Uabte to be dfemtesed and is Ircieby di»aQQlssed, ^ AU iatenm applications arc also dismissed. No order as to costs, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge r^-