IS~ :;1-— f^^ ^1/^ ..^w^^ .^"•":'^^v"}^ ..^•v"^w<9"ft).W"v »'e^r.--'^'T' 'A^""" ^•^°^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 35 BILASPUR fC.G.l CIVIL REVISION N0. /°0 /2006 APPLICANT ^ PLAINTIFF Shyamlal Shrivas Aged about 37'years S/o. Lachhi Ram Shrivas R/o. Chhotupara, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham VERSUS Utt.am Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o. Panchu Ram S h rivas, R/o. Da iha ndih, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) •v^"_ __ --.—.' CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE _^"^____ RESPONDENT DEFENDANT M XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^i<t> cTS?T3TT^T9b^icb 3^ '^<i4id<4, ^TH'yli<s, Rldl^^< , (^.R< ^o. /C?0 +11+1^1 ffl+IICtl ^200^ 3T^?T q^FT (^l^^ff) 5'^TT^R: ^f?cT 3T1^T <=bi^^41vi ^i^c-iT^:tec^'<(^^i< ^3:rf^R'3:TT^T 08.03.2007 Applicant by Shri Harjsh Vardhoai Sharma, Advocate. Heard on admission. The applicant is aggri poissed by Additional Distri ^ved by an order dated 17.03.2006 ^t Judge (FTC), Kablrdham <n Misc, Case No, 4 of 2005 whe^eby the opplication flled by the defendant/non-applicant het|ein for settmg thc expa^te decrce passed against him in CivJl Suit No. 2-B/20Q3 on 07.02.2005 w<xs allowed. Leamed counsel for ^he applicant has placed reliance on Basant Siwh & anolher Vs\ SC 3557. I have perused the i| order <xnd contains cogent aside the ex parte 6ecre&. Learned counsel for his affidavit which stated t| were also not examined. A Roman CathoUc Mission AIR 2002 inpugned order which is a speakin9 and justifiable reason for setting the cpplicant dld not di^)ute the fact that the defendant/re^pondent was not cross-ewmined on iat he r^ver refused any re9istered notice sent by 1+ie Court. Rie Postman or the witr»ess^ovind Prasad in whose presence -fhe registe d notice was refused, summons along with a copy of the application was also not s^nt to the clefendont. The only XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^TW cTSTT3T^?T5b^l<^ .w^ <-TTR€rll Sb441ch 3^r^n^n^pT, ^TH^^KO, ^<ni<iy . G ^ A^c- /OC ^ 2006 3TT^T^ra^ ('i?^6'^) 5^TT^K^cT3:n^T ^^ chl<Mfd4l4 ^ll^^lT ^* ^=6 <(^^<l< ^3:r1^T3TT^T summon which was issued b|y the Court against the defendant was returned unserved as ^ie defendaint was not availabte at the address 9iven which s|jpported the stand taken by the defendant that he had g<^ ne to fiandhidih for earning his livelihood. Learned counsel for -^he applicant has not been abte to demonstrate that learned Ajdditional District Judge (FTC) has acted in the exercise of materiat irregularity, or has his jurisdiction ille9ally or wilft sxercised jurisdjction notvested in it by law or has failed to exe^rcise a jur'isdiction so vested. The case. law cited by 1+ie learr]ed counsel does not apply to the present case and is ctearly di^tin9uishable. In -riiis view of the matter, this Civil Kevision is dismissed at the stage of admission. M.C.P.No.llSS of 200^ stands dismissed. for stay @f the procesdmgs also Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.