^' _J^A—— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSQARH AT BILASPUR Singte_Bench : Hon'bleShriDiliDRaosahebDeshmukh.J. Civii Revision No.312 of 2003 Ahmed Mansuri versus Shri Nandu Sao and others ORDER Postfor 3o-^-2007 Sd/- DaipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge HiGH CQURT QF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh._>L Civil Revision No.312 of 2003 Ahmed Mansuri, S/o Late Rahim Miya @ Makhe !V!iya, aged about 35 years, R/o Ramanujganj, Ward No.4, Tahsii Pal, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) PlaiRtiff Non-Aopiicants versus 1. 2. 3. 4. d:!, :; 5. Shri Nandu Sao, S/o Ramchandra Sao, aged about 42 years Shri Dilip Sao @ Lallu Sao, S/o Late Ramchandra Sao, aged about 38 years Smt. Shila Devi, Wd/o Ramesh Khare, aged 45 years, R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Ward No.14, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Shri Shankar Bhuiya, S/o Late Sasu Bhuiya, aged 40 years, R/o Vlliage Ranka, P.S. Ranka, Distt. Gadhwar (Jharkhand) at present Rfo Nagar Ramanujganj, District Sarguja (C.G.) Sate of Chhattisgarh, ThrougH the Collector, District Sarguja (C.G.) Ciyll Revision under Section 115ofCodeofCivil Procedure Present : Applicant by Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel. , Non-appiicanis No.1 to 4 by Shri Manoj Paranjpe.counsel. Non-appiicant No.S/State by Shri Akhii Agrawal, Panel ; Lawyer. : ORDER (Passed on 3oh'^iL3:007) i | This civil revision is directed against an order dated 1 7.09.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj, Surguja in Miscelianeous Civil Appeal No.5/2002. 'uoi)eo!|dde \WQ 6ui|!f ui pejjnooo peq sAep g A|UO ^o Ae|ep snyi pue 300Z't''Sl uo pe|ij sem epoo 841 10 esina s -isp.iO Jspun uoiieoiidde 8Mi 'ZOOZ'S'Sl. u° pSAiso&i SBM Adoo pue ZOOZ'S'6 uo joi psiidde SBAA ZOOZ'S'9 D3l®P-ISP-10 SMi jO Aci03 psyivso S41 ie4i pepusiuoo lt!tU!e|d/}ueoi|ddB sui Jo^ |93unoo peujes| '/4snd ueiey .149 (g) 'uoiSiAej siq? eou&i-i •uogsiiLUii j,o punoj6 941 uo osie se ZOOZ'S'8 uo iJnoo J9MO-) 841 ejopq eouejBsdde-uou siq joj yguieidAueaiidde eqi Aq uaAiB SGM uoBBUB|dxe Ajope^siies ou yeift punojB eu» uo sooz'6'Zl. psiep jspjo peuBnduii 941 Aq leedde sqt pessiLusip ynoo eiejisddv JS/AO-I eiij. 'fueBFnuetuey 'ynoQ diueo 'jnde)|iqiuv 'eBpnr puisiQ leuoiuppv pu|| sqi ejo^eq ZQOZ/S'ON lesddy IIAIO snoeueiieosiiAi peusiejd UtUiBjdAueoitdde 94} 'ZQOZ'6'9 PSiep jspjo 8141 IsuieBv •ZOOZ'£'8psiep jspjo 9ij} epise CuiBas w^ uojiBoyjtsnf ou sem ejsq^ leq} punoj6 eqi UO OSiB SB UOIlBlltUII Aq pejjeq SBM }! leqi punoj6 ©41uo pessiiusip sem uojieoi|dde 94} 'ZOOZ'6'9 psiep JspJo ue Ag 'iins ^o iessiuusjp sqi spise Bui.ues } spoo eqt 10 1,51. uo!p89 4+!M pssj s 8|ny 6 •isp-10 Jspun uogeoiidde ue pejjs^ejd j^BUiBidflueoiiddB eqi -iins SLJI pessiuisip pue epoo eqi io g einy ^.i. jepJQ JSpun pspsaoojd 'uoueoijdde aqi peioefej fueB|nueujey 'i-sseo 'eBpnp |!AJO psujeei 941 •eseo jsuious Buipusue jo^ jnde>jiqiuv 01 suoB pey ueAMj.'v'y WS issunoo IBUiByo sq} iey} punojB aq} uo (,epoo 941, qvoiaousLj) ejnpeoojd liAiQ 10 SDOQ ei|i 10 \. e|ny i [. jepJQ jepun lueiuujnofpe joi yBUiBid/iueoiiddB syip lieqeq uo peiy SB uoiteoi|dde uy 'iuesqe peuieiuej sesseuiiM siq pue .yitUjBidflueoiiddB 341 eiep yoiqM uo 'ZOOZ'S'Q u0 sauspiAe ^o Buipjoosj jo^ paxy sem }ins eqi •e?nBjn9 'fuB6fnueiuBy '|-SSB|O 'eBpnp JIAIQ 9L|l ejo^eq siUBpue^ep/s}ue3i|ddB-uou eui isuieBe [.QOZ/V-Zl. 'ON »ins IIAJO p3!ij PB4 yiiuiBiJflUBOtidde eyi }eui SJB S}OB^ pug (g) Bi.iiaeicj •luessjduieuisj iou pip 'psiuejB 8q p|noM tusiuujnofpe ue teyi 6uiiunssB 'yBUje|d/}UB3iiddB sqi 'souepiAS SLJ} p siep sqi uo ijnoo sifl ejojsq lussejd sq o} BuioB lou se/A KiiuieidAueoiidde sifl Aq peBeBus issunoo 04} eouig •epoo 941 y> \, 9|ny ^j. JspJQ JSpun lueiuujnofpB jo^ uoiieoijddB ue pejje^ejd pue vnoo 841 ejo^eq pejeedde peq issunoo joiunf e 'sjoiejeq^ 'pue jnde>|!qtuv o^ suoB peq yiiuiejdflUBOijdde ey^Joi Buuesdde lesunoo joiues su.i 'ZQOZ'S'S uo le4l psSjn OS|B SBM i| (t?) •MB| 0} AJBJIUOO SBM 'UOjtBtltUlj Aq pejjeq se 'spoo st)} p 6 sgny s -ispJO JSpun uoiiBOjidde eq} ^o jessiiusip 941 'Aiiunyoddo qons AUB »uej6 rou pip iJnoo JOAO-I 94} esuis 'ISV uoiieiiiun ei.li y> g uoipes jepun uoiieuopuoo ^Q9s 01 pue Ae|sp wt esneo eui SuiuiBidxs uo!iB3!jdcfe ue SAoai 01 ^jiUje|dflUB3!|dde 94} 01 Aiiunyoddo UB SAiB 0} (JnOQ 9l|( p Ainp SL|I sem 11 'peuopuoo eq iou pinoo AB|9p 841 'uoBBOiidde IBUJJOJ e 10 eouesqe ui icqi uoiuido 041 ^o SEM ijnoo eqi sjeqm ieqt psnBje sem }! 'osg ndW 966 fc 's-oy^o pue fuf^ tf^ qeXiej^ wessnff UBe^nyf -SA sjasffo pue jewn^f ifsajns uo souefiej Buioeicj 'tiABpiye ue uffl^ peyoddns Ajnp Ae|ep QV^ ys uo^euopuoo jo^ pv uo'WUin eift ,o s uoipss JSpun uoffeoiidde ue e|y }ou ptp y!tuiB!dflueo!|dde 841 jo^ issunoo SLJI 'iov uo!lelitun SMl ^o ZZl. 9|oiVV j&pun UO|IB)!IU!| Ui4ii pe!y sem epoo eqi 10 g s|ny g -ispJO -'spun uoiieoiidde eqt ieqi uojidiunsse snoeuojje ue jepun 'snyi 'SOOZ'fr'SI. UO p©iy 3BM UO!SIASJ B pUB ZOOS'£'Si. UO ZOOZ'S'8 PSIBP •iSP-IO p9u6nduii ei|HO Adoo sij} ^o idisosj ys eiep syi'aioji UOIIBIILUJI 10 pousd etji pSiBinoiBOSiiu lueoijdde sqi jo^ iasunoo sqi eouis uoiiBiiLuii uiqiiA SB uoiieoijdde 04} le^t peuoitueui A|jee|o seiA 11 'epoQ 04} ^o g Siny 6 JepJQ Jspun y!iujB|dftueoi|dde 94} Aq pe|y uoseoiiddB 94} ui fev^ psSjn sem it •pv uoiiB}iuji-! 84; p g uoipeg jepun uoiiBoiidde Aue ^o souesqe 1 eq^ ui USAO ynoo JBUI eui Aq pauopuoo uesq SAeq 0} iijBno L]3i4 '^J reliance on Mukta Devi Panda vs. Harish Chandra Panda, AIR 1984 Orissa 104, it was argued that even if the piaintiff had taken a!l steps for summoning the witnesses for 8.3.2002, it would have been practically impossibte for the piaintlff, even if he had remained present in the Court to prosecute the suit in the absence of his senior lawyer, therefore, the iower Court ought to have taken a pragmatic and liberai approachwhiie considering the application under Order 9 Rute 9 ofthe Code. Piacing reiiance on G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. Raizada and others, AIR 2000 SC 1221, it was argued that "sufBcient cause" for non-appearance refers to the date on vrtiich the absence was made a ground for proceedingex parte and could not be stretched to reiy upon the other circumstances anterior in time. Therefore, if on eariier days, the appiicant/plaintiff had sought adjournments, it wouid not by itsetf constitute any ground for rejecting the prayer under Order 1 7 Rule 1 of the Code by t'ne junior counsel, who appeared on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff on the ground that the original senior counsei had gone to Ambikapur for attending another case. it was contended that both the Courts below have adopted a very narrow and technicat approach in dealing with a suit for perpetuai injunction, which the piaintiffwas prosecuting againstthe non-applicants/defendants. (5) On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for non-applicants No. 1 to 4/defendants contended that the impugnedorder dated 17.9.2003 was an interiocutory order since even if the revision was aliowed, it would not finally dispose of the siiit or other proceedings. Therefore, applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Shalfti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur vs. Swaraj Oevefopers and others, (2003) 6 SCC 659 and Sufya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chancter Ral and oftere, (2003) 6 SCC 675, the impugnesdjorder 1:1' would be reckoned as an interiocutory order and, therefore, civii * revision under Section 115 of the Code was not maintainabie. !t was also urged that aithough the CMI Judge, Class-1, Ramanujganj had dismissedthe civil suitunderOrder 17 RuieZ ofthe Code, yet since the suit was dismissed for want of evidence, therefore, it ought to be construed as failing under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code and, therefore, even the application under Order 9 Ruie 9 of the Code filed by the applicanypiaintiff in the lower Court was not maintainabie. (6) Having heard the rivai contentions, 1 have perused the record. Order 17 of the Code deals with adjournments. Under Ruie 1 of Order 17 of the Code, the Court, upon sufficient cause being shown, has e jurisdiction to grant time to the parties or to any of them, at any stage of the suit, and to adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing. The proviso to Rule 1 of Order 17 of the Cotfe limits the number of such adjournments granted to a party during hearing ofthe suits to3. Rule 2 ofOrder 17 ofthe Code provides that where, on any date to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them faiied to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes in that behalf by Order 9 of the Code or make such other order as it thinks fit. The explanation to Ruie 2 of Order 17 of the Code provides that where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the heanng crf the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed Iwith the case as if such party were present. (7) Order 17 RuleS or the Code reacts as under:- - ^. -:—^~,.SfKak^^m.-IKiSS33lsr'ei^'dSisWtJlitist'-s:-!- i: i "3. Court may proceed notwlthstanding either party fails to prpduce evidence, etc. - Where any party to -a suit to whom time has been granted faiis to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been ailowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such defauit, - (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith, or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under rule 2." (8) It is thus clear that Ruie 3 of Order 17 of the Code leaves no room for any doubt that where any party t6 the suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence or to cause the attendance of his witnesses or to perform any other act necessary for the further progress of thesuit for which time has been ailowed, the Court may notwithstanding, - (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith, or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code. Thus, even in a case where a party is absent on an adjourned date of hearing for recording of evidence, sub-ciause (b) of Rule 3 of the Code wouid alone be applicable and the Court wouid have no option, but to proceed under Rute 2 of Order 1 7 of the Code. In other words, where the party to the suit, to whom time has been granted, remains absent on the date of hearing, the Court has to proceed under Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code and not under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code. In the present case, the applicant/plaintiff was absent on 8.3.2002, therefore, the learned Cjv!l Judge, Class-1, Ramanujganj rightly proceeded under Order 17 Rute 2 of the Code and, therefore, the order dated 8.3.2002, dismissing the suit, has to be construed to be one passed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the I'S! Code. Therefore, the remedy under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Cods was avaiiabie to the plaintiff and was rtghtly availed of by him. The arguments advanced by iearned counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 4/defendants is, therefore, iiable to rejection. (9) So far as the question of limitation is concerned, in Suresh Kumar and others vs. Kurban Hussain Taiyab Ali (Finn) and others (supra), it was held as follows:- "Section 5 is in the nature of proviso to section 3 of the Limitation Act and wouid diiute the rigour of section 3. For condonation of deiav under section 5, Limitation Act a formal application would not be required if the facts presented before the Court satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the appiicant before it was prevented for sufficient cause In bringing the proceedings well within limitation. if the Court is of theopinion that in absence of formal application the detay cannot be condoned then it is alwavs the duty of the Court to give an opportunity to the'applicant before it to move an application expiaining the cause for delay and seek condonation under section 5, Limitation Act. The applicant must get proper opportunity to explain the circumstances which prevented him from drawing proceedings weli within llmitation. AiR 1981 Orissa 126, AIR 1985 Pat. 148, AIR ] 1989 Guj. 44, Rei. (Paras 5 and 9)." (10) Since the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code was of only 2 days beyond the period of limitation of 30 da^s prescribed under Articie 122 of the Limitation Act, the learned Civil Judge Class-1, Ramanujganj, if not satisfied with the explanation offered by counsel, ought to have given an opportunity to move an applicatjcjn ia ||B SMB} 0} pue siep )xsu 84s uo ynoo s^} sjo^eq uo!}e}uessjdaj 314 W} tustus6uBjje4<8 S)ieiu A|9A!t!Sod pinoys 34 eLji BU!IB}S UBuieid eyi 01 )U8ujujnofpB |BUO!}ipuoo e iuej6 01 useq eAB^ pjno»uoiientis B qons ui ynoo ei|? Jo^ yoeojdde pejjoo sqi •jnde^iqtuv ie sseo JS^IOUB puene oi euo6 peq ysuieid 841 Aq peBeBue jssunoo joiuss 154} Buiuoiiusuu lusuuujnofpe jo^ uoiieoiidde ue psiy pue vnoo 941 ejo^sq pejeedde peq |esunoo joiunf sq} leq} peindsip iou si ij •JS/UAB| joiuss siq p aouesqe 341 ui ^ns 94} ps^noesojd SAeq iou p|noo ynuieidAueoiidde eq} 'ZOOZ-eO-SO uo luesejd UIBLUOJ 0} S9sseu»j siu Buiuotuiuns jo,( jsipee sds}s ||B U9)je} pey yiiuieid/tueoiidde stj} (eqi Suiiunsse USAS esneosq ZOOZ-GO-80 -loi ssuejeedde-uou SIL) joj j.iftuieid/iuBoiiddB eqi Aq uffioys SBM esneo lueioy^ns ieqi uoiuido pejspisuoo ev^ y) IUB | '(ejdns) Bpued ejpueifo (/sue^ -SA epueg/ fAa(j BfSfnyy ui pjsq sv 'lJnoo 841 "! lussqe psuieiuej 'ijnoQ 04} ejo^eq luesejd eq iou p;no/v\ LUIIJ Aq psBeBus lesunoo joiuos eui leq} e6pe|MOU)f peq 04M 'iisuieid/tueoiiddB 9Ut teqi sjesdde }i 'Buuesq jo^ pei|eo SBM }!ns aq} ueqAA 'ZOOZ'e'8 uo esuejeedde-uou siy jo^ ssneo ^usioLyns umoys seq yituiBidflueoijdde ©41J84194* si uojiejepisuoo sejmbej MOU yeu^ uoiisenb ^uo sq^ (g. [.) •PV uojiKtiiui-i sqi ^o s uoipss japun uoiieoiidde ue s[U 0} tueoiidde sq^ Buisfse USAS inoqiim sAep z A|UO p Aeisp eqi Buiuopuoo ui ueAS qaeojddB lejsqi! pue oiieuiSejd e peidope SAey pjnoys inq 'qoeojdde geoiuiioai pue MOJJBU AISA e uwys^ sAeq 01 iou }L|Bno }jnoo eie||eddv J^MO^ eqi os|e se fuB6fnueiuBy 'l-sseio sBpnp IIAIQ eqi 'sAep g A|uo p se/n pejjnooo Aeiep eqi eouig 'uoiieiiuuii jo punojo sqt uo wSiflno epoo sqi j.o 6 e|ny s JspJQ jspun uoiieoiidde eij} toelsj 01 uogoipsunf ou pey ynoQ eqt 'eseo 94} p seouetsiunojio pue stoe; SL)} ui yiiuiBid/iueoitdde eyi 01 A»iunyoddo ue qons BuiAiB inoqiiAft •PV uoneiiuin sq} ^o S uoipss jepun UORBUODUOO )|ses 0} pue Aefep jo ssneo 941 Buiuieidxe •siqeuiBiuieuj Sl UOISIAOJ IIAIO 8L|l IBU1 UOIUldO psjspisuoo eijuo uje | '(ejdns) sjaiffo pue s^adofaAaQ fejeMS 'SA jindBe^ 'A^aioos BuisnoH 'dooy ivfBtfS 4WS PUB (ejdns) s/aiffo pue ley jepueyo <uey •SA rey Aay eAng ui ynoo xedy SMI Aq umop pie) }S8( sqi BuiA|dde 'ejo^ejeqi -apoo eqi ^o gi.j. uoi»3S9 0} osiAOjd 94; ui pesn ..sBuipseoojd jsyio,, uoissaidxs eqi japun S!|B{ sseo leioipnf snoeueiieosiiu 841 'uoiuido psjepisuoo ALU u| -s|y 01 pejo}ssj ueeq 9AeL| p|no }ins SLJ} souis '^o pesodsip Aiieuy ussq 9AB4 p|noM zo02/e'°N aseo leioipnf snoaue||eos![fti 'pemoiie useq pey epoo eqi p (o)|. e|ny £frJspJQ Jspun yiiuieidAueoiidde su} Aq ps|y jeedde JIAIO snoeuB||90siLU 94} ji leq} 3noiAqo si }| 'sBuipssoojd J94l° •10 Vns ®MlP pesodsip Ajieuy OABLI pinoM v 'uoisiAej jo^ BuiAidde Aijed sqi ^o jnoAe^ ui spetU uesq pei) jspjo psu6ndLui aL|{ ji leqi S! 'tou jo jspjo Ajoinooijaiyi ue si psuBndai! jspjo ue jeyiSLjM Buuspisuoo jo^ }ss} sqt 'epoo eyi y> Q\.l. uoipes o} osiAojd eyt jepun 'jepjo Ajotnoopstui ue isuieBe psjje^ejd SBM 11 souis 'epoo 34i ^o ss. I. uoiioes 0} osiAOjd &4»jspun psjjeq sem UOISIAOJ 94} }8Mt siuepue^ep/fr 01 [.•ON sjueoiidde-uou sq} JO^ issunoo psujee| Aq peBjn SBM y, 'A|}SB-| (zi.) •}ins |IA!3 9t|} pej0}ssj SAeq 0} tqBno pue esea eqi^o seouejsuinojio pue s}oe^ eiji ui spoo ayi 10 g e|ny g JspJQ Jspun uoiieoiidde sqi Buuepisuoo ui MSIA !Bjeqi| pue oseiuBejd e usije} OAey 01 iqBno ynoo sieiiea'dv JSMO-I sqi OS|B SB fueBfnuBLuey 'j-sseio sBpnp IJAIO sui leij} uoiuido pejspisuoo aqi y> ws | 'sseo AUB u| •spoo 34) ^o e a|ny /;. jepJQ jspun pspesoojd eq ||Bqs }ins sy} pue ps}uej6 sq ||e4s }U8uiujnofpe jeqijn^ ou 'qoiqM 1 SUJIIBJ 'Buuesy ^o eiep pou sqi uo tuessjd sssseuii/n 514 dse)j o? sde}s 6 1^: <50p£i| 10 (13) Since the Civil Judge Class-l, Ramanujganj as aiso the Lower t Appellate Court have acted in exercise 6f their jurisdiction illegaliy and aiso with material irreguiarity, it is a fit case in which the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code shouid be invoked. As a result, the civil revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-09-2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj, Surguja in Misceilaneous Civi! Appeal No.5/2002 is set aside. The application filed by the applicant/piaintifF under Order 9 Rule 9 ofthe Code is allowed. Civi! Suit No.17-A/2001 is restored to its fite. The Civil Judge Class-i, Ramanujganj shal! restore Civil Suit N0.17-A/2001 to its originai number and after noticing the parties proceed in accordance with law to decide it on merits. Sd/- DUipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge