^t^ ^^ ^--,.,, ,,i_.^ V BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. N0. 4 S~ QF 2010 S^gl® APPLICANTS :;.) Govind son of Budharu Satnami, aged 50 years, :2) Shiv Kumar son of Budharu Satnami, aged 45 years, :^3) Prakash son of Budharu Satnami, aged 34 years, Applicants 1 to 3 Occupation Cultivation, R/o. Village Charbhatha, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) DEFENDANT No. 1 to 3 VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS :1)^ Ramanlal son of Misrilal -^ Maheshwari, aged 50 years, R/o. Singhoti, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Plaintiff ,^2) Dileshwar son of Ghotul ^ Satnami, aged 38 years, :3) Jageshwar son of Ghotul Satnami, aged 35 years Non-applicants 2 and 3 Occupation Cultivation, R/o. Village Charbhatha, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) :4) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) DEFENDANT No. 4 to 6 8TTT._re3Q IXTeT 3TT1 lUOQ'e §TTRTS'8 S'RAl .J3A.T3S SSSOOjd l^in 8m-fes Ssp ATR TTO jo 60QK-ZI~60 uo TRp^reTtTRy ^oiu jsAau SBU ireAu.T. TjjD,rr.T3TrB-j O/R '-.reuD^iTreM TBTn naDuaiTjoo \JL ~ e -^t A'TTBOTTToads DT.TR siireond'cfe 3U1 Aa D3TTd9J SV.i'A UOTTJAl 13V UOnBlTrjTTT OT.n 10 ("• TTonoso j3DTm TTOTnssTTdd'R LTR mnii gunre 8.jnrr 'v.re'iwn^cf *T-SS'RT'~> 'sSnnp rrAm iaT ^a s.jsuio G *? PTTTAOQ "SA I®^T-TR7TTBy usaAngq 6GOE/V-G'°N lInS TTAT^ TTT ngssBcT ftnn^-en-/7 nsTRD 09.1390 DTTB iTTaijjgnnf ax.n apTSR §u]-T^as .Joj 6C'OZ-ZT-i'I TTO 1-'oriv.OT[S6~e TJR pa^Tj pT3q •[ -0^[ T.rrR3T[d'dB-UOTT 5BT.T1 3-18 JSIJq UT S^O¥>J aq.J^. •g ' (TBTl.TRlTTRy -RA S.JSTpQ pW3 PTTTAOQ) 600Z/V-G"nN tTnS ITATO T_T{ psss'RcT 33.jo9p a^.-red-xa irR 3pTS^ STTp'^SS JOJ OJ3 g'[ 9ing A jgnjn .j3DTTn. uoTiROTTddB 10 uoddns UT DS'ITT sBAt TTOTTJAI '33V UOTlBlTroT'T 3T.TT. TO P TjoT-}03g jspTTn pgH^ uoT^OTfcTdw Tre UO (s.JStpSO % pTTJAOQ 'SA S.JST.no S5 TBp_reT!TRg) QQOS JO 0?% paigisiSa.-TTjn UT §.jna IOT-TISIQ ''8..rei3Tjj3g 'i-ss'E'iQ 'agpnn JIAT^ Aa ngss'ed nTn^-pn-^n DSI'RT) JSD.JO D9TT8ndiiTT sui 'lsuTRg'e (,0d0 STn^ UOT.TS joj) 8061 's.-Tnpaoo-Jj HATO jo spOQ aU'I 10 PTT UOT133Q .JSDUn D9TTI TT93a ST3U TTOTSTAaj SHJ.T. ' 7 •n.jRau' t~ " ~ ~ .S- J. ^TTffTkt^ "'^^^'*?yS^.T t^t ^??5rT —-•ir'?is^ ss'l^^S^.?^y ii i.^JC' ^^^^"•'••^ ^^ *»uii^ ps^ ^^ ^^i.ipu,/^^ '^f3fT^€^^TVI^T^ lUi.tia.^A^.&^y A w ".^.'^' -."-/-r/T'. -S^ITB3t[CiCl'B 344. -?OJ {SSUiiOO ^/nSTBF' oJ.33p\J "i.ing l.nTA 3^'800Apy jonjag "TBA'R.J§V 'g"r-{ T-n-IS : 5ro i'p 'aippnlteqniiw 'Q uqg^atq.noH ;S8i 3.JITD3100.J.-4 TTAT'^. 10 3DO'^ 3T.U 10 CTT TTOU03C: .T^Dim UOTSTA3>T TFAT'' •S.J3TJ10 nx.re wftwvreyf •^T^^hT A^'&.E-ia'S, "S.JSTno DTTS DTTTAOrs •-..it^e^.-'l.. -3T Ibdf.S, S.'i^.tw -Sl r>Tf>?: io c-b •OM "??'n -u' »• %.? •»^> <? aa y *w. ihA •w •STS^OVTTCT .T.'W wysvfismwHW^ i.an .'s.vsnn') wnTW Sg.J.A^A^S W AACSL lbS« W AASS, W'SJ''^4,sArVA?W.i^.AA^-? 1;5.%>^ •^f^.t.AA^-T'Sa? A'.il, ?,«?.±XA ^--s>1. s ti '&iS&S2'•i'i si ^Ssf,*^ g S "^ '~'^// '^&^.. 's^- ivnasra i-io. /uo ai'ea u.^i necLaTc Deionguig 10 non- a^plicaiit No. 1 and to uiat efiect ari aiBdavlt of Raiiiadhar was also filecl. The possession of tiie suit laixl li-i pursuaiice ofjudgcient and decree has been also taiien by uic appucanTs on if-u^-zuiij, ITI pLirsuauce 01 posscssion war'r'aiit dateu 30-01-2010, uierelore allowing condonau.oii of delay application is Iilegal aiid bad in law because rio sufficient cause was ruade out. for condonation of delay ana uie gi'OLUius raiseu uiereui ai'e provea 10 uc laise oy tlie applicaiits even tlien aliowiiig condonation of delay appucation is uiegai anu uiereiore, orfler aatcu Ut-ua- 2010 is llaole to be set aside, hexice tlils revision. 4. In Clvil Suit No.5-A/2009, aii ex-parte ciecree was passed on 27-08-2009 by Fu'st Civu Judge, Class-I, Benietara, Disu'lct Durg. An appucation tor' settkig aside the saiu decree was uled under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC aiong wiui aii appucauon Luiaer secuon o 01 uie j-.iiuiTa.uon AC'L, iyo>5 lor conuoning LUC ueiay. ine saia application under Sectlon 5 offhe Liinitatioi'i Act has been a-iioweu uy uic lower L;OUIT Dy oraer aaiea ut-ijd-.^uiu. 5. In par'a 5 of fi'ic order', it has been iiientioned that sunirnons were issued to tlie present appucaiit/defendaiit aud otliers but tliey refused to accept uie sanie anu suusequenuy, on uieu"' non-appeaj'ance, ex-paiTe pf'oceeaings were neiu anu ex-paf'tc aecree was passea agaliist tiieui. Beiateuly, present uon-appiicaiit I'io. 1 moved aii applic&tion for setting aslde the ex-pai'te decree along wlfli an application for' condoniiig uic dela^7 on tlie gf'ounu tliat lic leai'nt about t.l'ie ex-parte uecr'ee troiu RaHiadliar aiid after tliat he dUigenuy nioved an appucation for setting aside fhe decree. 6; As per para 5 of the unpugned oruer' datecl 04-03- 2010, sumruons wliicii were issueu t.o tlie uetcuuants were r'efused by uiern anci as such uie applica.tion for settuig :^K^^^^^^^^^ ©3 aside flic decree i.uider' Or'der' 9 Rule 13 of CPC should have been filed wif[-jiiti 30 days of tlic passing of the decree. In case where 'tlie defendaiits have refused to accept tlie suinmoiis, fhe period of 30 days for moviiig an application for settiug aside the decree wul be couiputed froru flie date of decree aiid not froui Li-ie date of Kuowieage. AS sucn uiere was no occasion 101" cona.oriitig tlie delay aiid ttie appucation uiiuer Section 5 of fhe i--iiruiauon Aci snouia iiave ueen r'ejcCLea Dy ine uiai ijourL. . i'. ui uie r'esuii, ine revision is auowea aiia uie oraer aaiea t-o-^uiu is SCL asiuc aiiu as a consequence, uie proceeclings tor settiiig asicie uie ex-pai'te uccree uutiateu on application uiider Order' 9 Rule 13 of CPC is also qua.sueQ. o. INO orucr' as LO COSLS. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge •1;'y^_