^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT DEFENDANT(wrongly mentioned) CIVIL REVISION 74/2008 SMT. S. CHITRA w/o Late R.Suresh Kumar Aged About 38 years R/o M.I.G. 22M.P.H.B. Colony Kota, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur. (C.G.) VERSUS lON APPLICANTS PLAINTIFFfwrongl^mentioned) l.M/S INVESTWELL Carrying on Business of Portfolio Advisor and Counselor, Govind Dham Civil Lines, Raipur. 2.Smt. Sarit Kaur Batria W/0 Harbaksha Singh Batra Proprietor and Partner M/S Investwell, R/o Govind Dham Civil Lines, Raipur. 3.SARDAR HARBAKSHA SINGH BATRA S/o Sardar G.S. Batra Proprietor and Partner M/S Investwell, R/o Govind Dham Civil Lines, Raipur. CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 31/08/2010) 1. Heard. 2. Order impugned dated 25/2/2008 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10/2007 reversing the order dated 29/9/07 passed by First Civil Judge Class-1 Raipur in Misc. suit No. 10/2006 whereby application for setting aside the exparte decree was dismissed perused. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 4. Order impugned and copy of order dated 29/9/07 perused. c : ,,::r : .,^^:'.:A^^ 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that ^t- Jt^STr present respondents are in habit ^er prolong the proceeding and have not taken proper precaution when the case was called for hearing and when the case was decided exparate therefore First Civil Judge Class-1 Raipur has rightly dismissed the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code but has illegally allowed the appeal by the Court below. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the civil revision and submits that on the date of hearing the counsel for the respondents were not present on account of another criminal case pending before the Court of Dhamtari it was duly informed by the Clerk of counsel to Court but Court proceeded exparte against the respondents. They have filed petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the exparte proceeding by showing good cause but same was dismissed on the ground that case was not fixed for hearing and was fbced for judgment thereafter present respondents have filed application forsetting aside exparte decree by showing sufflcient cause. Vide order dated 29/9/07 First Civil Judge Class-1 Raipur has dismissed the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that respondents have failed to show sufficient cause virtually and technically on the ground that they have filed petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code which was dismissed on the ground of technicality. Respondents were required to show only good cause^their non appearance. "1 "\ '^ 1 ^-:.^' <\^ 7. Considering the facts it is difficult to hold that respondents were not having good cause for their non-appearance while considering the material and with a view to provide opportunity to the parties for doing complete justice Court below has allowed the appeal, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned requiring any interference in exercise of fevisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this civil revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge