IN THE HONBLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA5FUR PETITIONER PLAINTIFF W.P. f227) No. agaS /2010 Smt Jheegri Bai, D/oBaha<iw, aged about53 yem5,iVoVillageKurkuria Mahnai, Tahsil Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS ^' RESPONDENTS DEFENDENTS ^^ ^:^^"^? 0^0<.^y "^••••v : 1. Surendar, S/o Lal Sfaahi, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Mahnai, Tahsil Bagicha Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) \ .V^ . presently R^ Village Chhichhli ^^'&^S^(charkaghat)'Tahsil Bagicha'Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) f" 2. StateofChhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Jashpur. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prasiiant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 2899/2010 PETITIONER : Smt Jheegri Bai Versus RESPONDENTS : Surendar and another Appearance: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner, None for respondent No. 1 . Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (07.04.2011) Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner. (2) The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting her prayer under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC for restoration ofCivil Suit No.21-A/1997 which was dismissed for want ofprosecution on 2/08/2003. (3) The application under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC was filed on submission inter-alia that the plaintijff was suffering from mental disorder and had gone to Kanke (Jharkhand) Hospital for treatment and could not infonn this fact and her inability to appear, to her counsel. She came back to her native place on 30 November, 2004 and became aware ofthe fact about dismissal ofthe suit for want of prosecution. However, she again suffered from jaundice and was obtaining treatment from Primary Health Centre, Sanaa and was on bed resttill 15th ofMarch, 2005. 'VJ „ ^ (4) Leamed Trial Court has accepted the plea Fegarding the petitioner having suffered from mental disorder, however the Trial Court was ofthe opinion that the application was filed after 26 days from tiie date when the petitioner recovered from jaundice. (5) In the matter of CoUector, Land Acqiusition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and odiers reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 the Hon'ble Supreme has held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay the court should not be hyper technical and that efforts should be made to grant opportunity to the parties to contest the case on merits. (6) The Trial Court, in the present case, has taken hyper technical approach by refasing to condone the delay even after accepting the plea that the plaintifif was suflfering from mental disorder and thereafter jGrom jaundice< (7) In view ofthe above, the order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and Civil SuitNo. 21-A/1997 is restored to its original number. (8) The writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- PrashantKumarMishra Judge ^^