^'••s^?^ ...l-'-:^"/^^^ ^--gl^' ..•--'" da^--"" ^Qmb^^ IN Op AT CHHATTSSGARH CIVILRBVISIONNO. ^ / /2G06 APPLICANT : ^Jagannath, S/o. Dirjo, Aged about 70 yrs, ,N6N- AFPEU^NT N0. 1 ^ Cast - Kolta, R/o. vmage -Khairkhunta, Tahsil and District - Mahasamund (CG) ^ 1] ^ Dalmo Bai W/o. Shridhar Sahu, ^-— Aged about 68 years, Cast - Kolta, R/o. vma.ge - Jarabharan, Tahsil and District - Mahasamund (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) -NON-APPELL-^T N0. 2 ^15 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURB F T XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^ f^rll<=b 371^1 $t)<-iicti ^f^a 's^ ^i^icn^. ^Til^^Ko, f^<ni^^< 3TT^T XR^ —. R,^<s; <^2>y HW^{ »»^|cb ' """"*****y*^^ 200^, f5re^T^'<'7***'***"<*'*"*"*' 3?TT^T ^^T[^R Trf^T 10-11-2006 counsel with Shrl Vaibhav 6overdh<j CM^?oi^l"i "RTH^rf ^ fe^t <H?i^i< '^N^R^T^F AppiicGnt JagQnrsath by ^lhri Manoj Poranjpe, leorned n, Advocate. Respondent No.l by Shri Sun|i Scshu, Advpcate. State/Respondent No.2 by S|iri Akhil Agrawai, Panei La^yer. At the request of Eearned c^unsel for the parties, this Civii Revision 'is -beirig- dteposed/'of 'f|indly- todQy ot. the stage of csdmissioh. Brief facts are thot the a| instituted Civi! Suit No.31-A/2003 IpllcQnt/piGintiff jQgQnncsth had against Daimo Bai and the State of ChhQttisacrh for deciarGtion ahd Dermanent injunction. In the soid Civil Sujt, the respondent/defendGnt DQJmo Bai WGS Gppearing throu9h,Counsei. According to tljse appiicant-on 05-11-2003 the aforesoid Cjyil Suit ?^os flxed fd^ recording pldntiffs evidence. . The,' defendant/respondent DGimol 05-11-2003 but. was" represented | Jnstructio^s. Consequently, thels't) pr^oceeded ex-parte against the i| and ex-pcsrte judgment' and de.cj Boi did not ap.pear in "person on by 'h©rcounsel i^ho.pleQded no Civsl Jud9e Class-I,. Mohasdmund 'espondent/defendQht Dalmo. BaE ree was passed on 18"11"20Q3 G9^^"t""Ddmo Bd. On 25-03-^004, "Ddmo Bd preferred an' applicatiQn .under Order-9 'Ruie-p.S C.P.C. for, ^etting GSlde the [^Tt^^fe^ T XI-HC-22 3?n^T'^r kTiic^ ^n^r 5^^icb ^f^a ^sr r^l^ld<LI. ^'^^•'Ko, fQl<nMy 3n^?r xra^? <r.R,.HG.<SQ/ tTO^nrwti^"""""""""""""""""^'^ 200 ^, 'fq^ST"""""":""""""" ex-parte 'judgment and decree executed a po^er of attorney In who ^as appearlng on her: beh^lf 'due to, Mdaria from 31-10- plaint|ff/app"iicGnt herem conteste ordsr doted •23-12-2004, th®Isf dismissed the' appiication under Or there WQS no sufficient caus©for DaImoBai on 05-11-2003. Ddlmo B< .. Appeal No.01/2005 csgain^t the sai 2006/the Ist Additionai District Qppeal cn the grounds thcit Dol'mo ond considering the ground of Wm heQring crjd also the principle^ of heoring 'ought .to be gronted to No.Sl-A/2003. Consequently, t| No.01/2005 was allowed subject the .defendant to th.e.present Qpp!| 'Shri VaEbhav ©overdh-an,i^ Gpplicesnt' has contended thGt &a| certififcate rebting to iilness-of' CM<Li?<n<fl'i ^H<yiT ^ Fs^l iHs-i^K ^'3Tf^R>3TI^r l^n the 9rours^ f^t she had Ifavour1 of her husband Sridhar i|n,fhe Clvi't Suit. Sridhar was 111 -^003 till 20-03-2004. The {j the aforesai'd appliccstion. Vide ipivil Judge Ciass-I, MahGsamund ^der 9 KuJe-13 C.P.C. hoiding that non-appearQnce of the appeilant |i preferred a Miscellaneous Civli order. Vide order dated 1Q'-G5W Uudge, MQ'hasaniynd ailo^ed the Sd ^as an .old lady aged 68 years §sof her husband on the .date of iaturG§Justice on opportunity 6f Khe defendGsnt in the Civil Suit ijs MJ^cellGneoys Civil Appea! payment of cost Rs.1,000/- by ^ant/pldntiff,.. -' ,;' . . srned' counsel appearing for the iTiO Bd did not fii©any medlcai i©rhysband''Sridhar on the date [Tit^'^fe^ r T XI-HC-22 '^T f^rlich ^n^T 5t)<-ficb ^f^a ~?^'^TPT^T^/'^^R^ [®l<ni^< HIW'TT 5h*«cb 3ff^T T?^? :r-.:.t..N.O....<?.^. ^ 'M 200 A "1^8T" 3:n^r ^^[T^K TrftcT —3> of heQrin9 i.e. on 05-11-2003. It :.of attorney aileged to, have been h©rhusband on 24-09-1991 did n< substance it was urged that baimc cause' for non-appearance on 05-3 Sunil Sdhu, iearned counse! NQ.l/Defendant &Qimo Bai urged Bai/ the foct that her counsei dic dQte of hearing, the defendant of counsei who.pieaded no jnstry< urged that provision contained in be liberally construed so as to adv w<|xs ^hbu Mavin^ .considered 'rivoi s| record. It is not disputed that defendcnt did appear. before MQhosamund on the ddte of heor .the Clvil Revi^ion abo sho^s thatl fixed for recording the plaintiff's In M.X.Prasad Ver5ys:'P. ^ .L»S-C.T. 2 it i^as heid.:by the Ap| cni^f<yl<flrl 'RTH^ff ^ (^^1 {f^l^K ^'?rf^FT 3TT^T also contended that the power given by Daimo1 Bo§ in' favour' of |t inspire confidenfie. In sum Qnd !B'di had fQiied,.to shoi^ ^.uffEcient lt-2003. On the other hand, Shri IppeGring for. the respondent tJ'ict considering the age of Daimo Gppear before the Court on the Id not be penciized fortheact fetions on'her behdf. It-was olso !0rder-9 Rule-13 of G.P.C. should /Isnce substGntialjustice. ' . . ibmissions-/ I hwe perused- the t'he counsei appointed: by the the .Ist .Civil Judg© Class-1, inq i.e. on 05-11-2003. Para-1 pf on 05-11-2003 the Civil Suit was evidence. ". .rurrtu(?am reported En 2002' (I) . x Court thct%. while deciding the JL [^^fe^ T XI-HC-22 371^1 ^T f^iicb 3Tlt^T 5b^ich 'yf^a 's^ ^WM^, ^Til^^Ko, fa<ni^^< 3^?T 'q^T^ C^,^o. ^3, ^i^cir 5b*iich "^ 200^ '^r^sT" ^TT^T ^^TT^R; ^rf^r <( appfication for setting aside the k©epin mind the .judgment impug involved, and th.e stake of thepar'l ©K- }<-Bparte decree, the Court should l|ned^th€ ext.ent" of the property / Applying the dbove principi under Order-9 RuSe-13 C.P.C. MahGsamund overiooked the jud 'property' invoived, th©undisturb her share of suit iands .and'the' pr •the stake between th©parties. "sufficlent cause" used In Or< interpreted liberolSy as tq advan thi^art it. The impugned order ciearjly Daimo Bai-that h@r husband' who tosis of a power of attorney exe4 of 4-5 months from 31-10-2003 ob^erved that Dalmo' Bai was in Eands and the application filed Dalmo Bal -. by • issuance of a dlsmissed. : ' •' CM^F<n<j1i TTF^ff ^ fe^ <F3i<^i< ^ <3Tpm 3H^T ies." l^, whiie rejecting the QpplicGtion |the Ist Civii Judge Ciass-I/ judfement impugned, the ©xtentof [d possession- of DaJmo .Bai over oionged earJler lEtigation and dso [t is weli.seftled thct the ^ord. |er-9 Ruie-13 C.P.C. should be :e sub^tantial justlce and not to. ^hd^vs that the testimony of ^QS' looking after the case on the jted by her was sll during a period ss wholly unrebutted. It was olso )ossession of'i- shdre'of the suit by the. pldntiff for restrairsing ^emporary jnjunction-had been JL [Tft^ ^n^^ T" XI-HC-22 3TT^?r^T f<yii<=h 3nt^T 5ti*4ict) 'uRa ><^" -yoEr •^Trai^TT. 'S^tws, rai<'iwy 3Tlif?T 'q^? .^:±^.^M WRc^T^Wch X 200^ 'fN^T' ^STT^T ^<TT8[H:'Hf^T ^- edch thdri- flhe Considering the above fact si<] the defehdant was an oid Qnd iliiteratte being represented by counsei on that her*'counsei.:did appeQr b^fore t^ of a sudden pleoded no instructtons -^or F am of the considered'opinion 10-05-2006 te In conformity ^ith .nQtural justice. There is 'nothing to Additional , District 'Judge, Mahoso|?iynd committed any materid irregLslarity. .In'this viei^ of.the matter1, t| being devoid of merit is dismissed at In view of th@ csbove/ M.(C.)? s.tay.QJso stands dteposed.of. Certified copy os per rules. uation and aiso the fact that lady oged 68 years cind wa3 hearingand also th@ fact is Cdurt on 05-11-2003 and al! br reasons best knoi^n to him, the impugned order date.d weli .settted principl.es'of indicate thot the iearned Ist had acted ilieQQliy or <=hl4(d^1'1 ^l^<nT'^ ^S <F3l<^i< ^ ^rf^TH-STI^T ils Civil Revislon No.89/2006 he stGQ.e of admission. .No.1040/2006 for grant of Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge [Tft^ ^Rst^t I.