t ( ‘ I _ $ ‘ x I i 1 1 ‘ { ‘ V uu—u.u-—muwmmmum «nu—~- > t % PE ‘I‘ IT IONERS awn-*W DEFENDANIS » I , §‘§ ‘ 1 msmmnm PLALrNTIFF 1 Y l i 1 §§ § f'l z x I l ’ : IN TIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR £2004 / Wye-awn». ”an... WRIT PE TITION NO .mu..muumu...n.m.~m~uu¢ .- «‘ ‘ : Mahaviri Prasad Mahto; Son of r Rambarah, aged about 62 years, / 2 Jay Prasad, Prakash, aged Son about o£ 50 Dwarlka years, 3 Fulmatl Dev1, WlLe of Mahav1r /‘ Prasad, aged about 55 years. m ‘ ( All are re31dent o£ Ramanujganj, Tahsll : Pal, Dlstrlct : Surguja ( C G ,t ‘ < VERSUS ., r z m....n—u...u-—u— / u .; DEFENDANT u-...n.- n...“ Q IT PEgggoN UNnER ARTICIE g 2g F Tm coysnTUTmN ‘x‘ _ ' ~ ‘ / < i ' o , . V‘ : 1 Smt Makhmal V" Dev1, Wlfe of I Shallgram Tlwarl, aged about } / 48 years, re51dent of Ramanujgah Tahsll . Pal, Dlstrlcb : $urguja ( c G ) : § 2 state of Chhattlsgarh through thé * Collector, Amblkapur, ( C G ) ) SB‘ HON SHRI N K AGARWAL, J 1 PRESENT — Shn V K Pandey, Advocate, for the petmoners Shn Prafulla Bhamt Advocate for the respondent No 1 Shrl Arun Sao Govt Advocate, for the State v Heard. Petltloners appeal filed 1n the Court of the Addltlonal I D1str1et Judge (FTC), RamanujganJ was d1sm1ssed 1n ' » default Apphcatlon for restoration of appeal was filed menuonmg wrong prov1s1on as Order 9 Rule 9 of C P C mstead of Order 41 Rule 9 of C P C Therefore, one applicauon for W1thdrawa1 of the apphcatmn for restoratlon was filed The tr1al Court dlsmlssed the above apphcatlon and Whlle dlsmlssmg the apphcatlon for ,Wlthdrawal of the app11cat10n for restoratlon of appeal the thal Court also d1smlssed the appllcatlon for w1thdrawal Hence thls petltlon I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned Learned Counsel for the pet1t10ners would submlt the drst appellate Court whlle reJectlng the appllcatlon for also rejected the appllcatlon for restoratlon 1tse]f flled menuonmg the wrong prov151on as Order 9 Rule 9 of C P C whlch on the face 1s contrary to law. V g goMwwwf“-..“A_ A %% HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RIT PETITION No 356/2004 bE'hTIONERs Mahaveer Prasad Mahto and o RAL o R D ER (29-6—2011) w1thdrawal of the restoratlon appllcatlon, ’ K I Versus RESPONDENTS Smt.- Makhmal Devi and 2 " iiled for restoration of appeal in accordance Wlth law on its : own merit aiter aifording full opportunity of hearing to both the parties by permitting the respondents to raise all the objections including maintainability of'the appeal. V ‘No order as to costs. QR On the other hand Shri Bharat learned counsel for the respondent No 1 would submlt the appeal preferred by the petltloners before the first appellate court was 1tself mcompetent and therefore the restorauon apphcatlon was also moompetent masmuch as only the peutloner No. 1‘ has authorlzed the counsel whlle fllmg appeal Be that as 1t may, all these questions when raised by the g respondents had to be decided by the first appellate court. So far as rejection of restoration application under Order 9 Courts are abolished, the matter is remitted to the District j i C.P.C. is dismissed is set aside. Since the Fast Track i ; Judge, Ambikapur, ’Sarguja to allot the case to the Court v of competent jurisdiction to decide petitioners apphcatlon i - Rule 9 of C P C 1s concemed 1t is on the face Without rhyme and reason and 1n utter Violation of the prowsmns t j Therefore the order impugned to the extent by which the restoration application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of: