^^ •s' COURT OF C! iinfil Pialntsff Kranti Dani, S/o Late Shri Shridhar Dani, 50 years, resident of Baniapara, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Coilector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Aisceilaneoys Aepea! ursder_0rder43 Ru!e1 (C) of_C.P.? Pn Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, counsei for the appeliant. Shri G. D. Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondeni Lii (Passed on 21 ofAprii, 2008} Heard on !.A.No.1, which is an application under Section 5 of the tion Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (2) For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and the de'ay of4 days in flling this appeal is condoned. (3) At the request of learned counsel for the being heard and finailv disoosed of at the stage of admission. is apoeal is f/<\ U [rievsd by an order dated 13-08-S District Judge (F.T.C.), Durg i.e., 3 No.07/2007 whereby pn the date nnaiiv. (5) The appellant/piaintiff is ai passed by the Xlth Additional 26-07-2005 in Misceilaneous Cas for recording evidence for the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant/p!aintiff. The application under Order Ru!e 9 C.P.C. fsled by the appellant/piaintiff was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 13-08-2007 on the ground that there v/ere tremendous latches on the part of the appeiiant/piaintiff in pursuing the, 1 —•^' suit from 03-08-1994 till 26-07-2005. The appellant/plaintiff did not take any stsps for adducing evidence despite several opportunities given by the Court. (6) From a perusai of the impugned order it appears that in the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. filed by the appel!ant/plaintiff it was stated that because of his pre-occupatlon due to iilness of his mother, he forgot the date of hearing i.e.,26-07-2005, as a result of which he neither appeared in person nor informed his counsel. This fact was duly substantiateci by the affidavit of the appellant/piaintiff which remained uncontroverted. In this view of the matter, it vvould be appropriate in the interest of justice to give a last opportunity to the appellanVpiaintiff to adduce evidence, subjectto cost. (7) In the result, the appeal is aliowed subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant/piaintiff in the High Court Legal Aid Committee 'hin a period of 30 days from today. Upon deposit of such Y-.^ cost by the appellant/ptaintiff within the time stipulated, the impugned order dated 13-08-2007 is set-aside and the appiication under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. flled by the appe!!ant'p!aintiff against dismissa! of civil suit for non-appearance is altowed. The tria! Court shali' give one iast opportunity and no further to the appeilant/piaintiff to adduce evidence. !t js made clear that this order shali be effective on'v upon dsposit of cost. If cost is not deposited wifhin the time stipuiated, this appeai shail stand dismissed. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ rumane