t) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) APPELLAN'T'S/DEFENDANTS %./ .</••- ^' <^y l^L~ ••' ^" ^" / <y RESPONDANT ^ PLAINTIFF ^ 1. Vinod Kumar Thawani, aged about 48 years, son of Mayaram,Vinod Electronic, Near Municipal Office, Champa, Tahsil- Champa, Distt: Janjgir, Champa. 2. Sachchanand Thawani, aged about 52 years, S/o. Mayaram Thawani, Seema General Store, Sadar Bazar, Champa, Tahsil - Champa, Distt. Janjgir, Champa. VERSUS ,Firm Ganeshilal Gulabchand, Partnership Firm, resident of Naila, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. Secprid Appeal U/s. 106 C.P.C. against the order ^teU ^^^^^.^^«J.—---^^ " ~" ^ ~~ ~ ~ ~ "^^ ^^'29.1.2003 passed by Adl. Judge, Janjgir, in M.C.A. No. 16/2002 rejecting the a,pplication for setting aside exparte decree passed ^^^'" in C.S. No. 4-A/94 court ofCivil Judge, Janjgir, dated 10.5.96. ^^ ^---n'"°'"" Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2003 passed by Adl. Judge, Janjgir in M.C.A. No. 16/2002 the appellants beg to prefer this appeal before this Hon'ble court. FACTS OF THE CASE -^ The plaintiff firm filed a C.S. No. 4-A/94 in the court of Civil Judge, Clas.s-1, Janjgir for ejectment from suit premises situated -^::.;-^-=^r^--....-.. ^-^^'^s^^w^^w^,^^^.^^,^^^ XI-HC—78 'TS? "^raT^R, '^ftW^, t®l<rtt<l^< c ^. ^w^s st»*ai«h •-^200- sn^r •q^7 (lie<US<<^) ^i^l ^? ftiw ^T^?^i'§^w| 1'^T^R ^fca ^i^T ' ^ ,^-. ',—^ R- '^^ ^ .< ^y^s^ courlse Shri K.M.Ansari, leamed Shri Rajeev Shriva^tava, iearr|i Meard on 'admtegJon, The.applicants :had .movod ar^ the C.P.C. before the trial Court whlch was rejected-by the trial Cc cMI unl the learned Additiona} Judg^ dismisseid- tne same and thr th©instant civil revision. At this stage; Jearned oounsel thjs revi^ion on the ground that the proviso to Section 115 afthe C.P.C. :ln in •the matt in vlev^ofthe gubmisdor^ of- revision is dismissed a.s not maintaina However, learned eouneel for .appropBate unc Liberty as js granted, •aRprf?Nh TWI?ff^ IS^'?S^?^ ^>3tRp?a?H^i eiforthe appiicants. •d ooun^el for non-applJGant, appiioation undor Order 9 Rut©13 of ?r setting the ex-parte deoree iirt and again^t whic-h ler Order 43 Rule 1(d) of C.P.C. and Janjglr by the has the;: appllcants has for fhe applicants seeks to withdraw ime is not maintainable in vjew of the In vlew of the reported' y as weil as in 675 in fh@ matter of Dw/ ^f V&. ^/ sfMofh^f^. ^arned ooun^^l for th^ applicants, tho bie. |he applicants -prays for Jiberty to fiie ler law.- Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge