THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w IS® DEFENDANTS ^/ P. (Art.227).NO. \{^ OF 2009 SS 1. Narendra Dev S/o Mangal Prasad Gupta, ^ aged about 50 years 2. Bhupendra S/o Mangal Prasad Gupta, / aged about 45 years 3. Ashok S/o Mangal Prasad Gupta, aged L@years DEFENDANTS ^^ ^^^^ y All resident of Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1.' Bhagwat Prasad Gupta S/o Ramlal Bani, aged about- 65 years, resident of Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Govind S/o Chamra Sao, aged about- 52 years R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Gauri Bai widow of'Laxmi Prasad, aged about- 57 years 4. Motilal S/o Laxmi Prasad, aged about- 38 years 5. Uttam S/o Laxmi Prasad, aged about- 35 years 6. Raju S/o Laxmi Prasad, aged about- 35 ."tl'i- 7. 8. Santosh S/o Laxmi Prasad, aged about- 30 years, S. No. 3 to 7 R/o village- Kunjra, Tahsil- Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.j. Gauri Bai widow of Girdhari, aged abc>ut- ^ ^s /y^s^ it''£i ^ 50 years 9. Sanjay S/o Girdhari, aged about- 22 years 10. Manjhali widow of Bhura Sao, aged about- 70 years 11. Laxrain widow of Surendra, aged about- 42 years 12. Gaytari daughter of Surendra and wife of Santosh Mahajan aged about- 26 years, R/o Baikunthpur, Mahalpara Road, Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 13. Birendra S/o Surendra, aged about- 24 years 14. Bhawani S/o Surendra, aged about- 21 years 15. Hansraj S/o Surendra, aged about- 19 years 16. Dwarika S/o Bhura Sao, aged about- 29 years S. No. 8 to 16 R/o village- Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 17. Gautami Bai daughter of Chamra Sao, wife of Vidya Gupta, Chandrapur, Hatri Chauk, Chandrapur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 18. Son Kunwar daughter of Chamra Sao and wife of Manmohan Gupta R/o Badsara, Surajpur Distt. Ambikapur (C.G.). 19. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) WMT FETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner respectfully begs to submitas-iua^" frffm^ ^Si^ \^1 ^Si^S-HC-78 t ^~^^!iAiid4, ^fRprs, fN^rray ^..I:..^^.^.^S8^ (•? SVW °6IT^ 'i'n sn^r giWF 1 -STSTTtolf&te^ffmmsHceT^K.'^Bnrai •EfiCTCTift" T?T:Rfr ^' f^?tTf^K •^•sffirasnt^ Shr' Manoj Kumar Sinha, c4unsel for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Pane| Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission. The petition is directed ag^inst the order dated 06-08-2009 (Annexure P-1) passed in MJC pass No.3/2009 by Civi! Judge, CIass-11, Gharghoda, District Raig^rh whereby and whereunder the appiication fiied by respondent NJ3.1 under Order 9 Ruie 9 of the C.P.C. was allowed and the Civil $uit No.130-A/2002 was restored inits original number. The brief facts givlng rise tcj the petition Is that some time in the year 2002, a suit was fil^j for partition and permanent injunction by the ptaintiff/respond^nt No.1. On 02-04-2009 when the suit was fixed for plaintiffe' el/idence, the suit was dismissed due to non-appearance ofthe plaifitiff, under Order 9 Rule 8 ofthe C.P.C. Immediately, thereater on 06-04-2009, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an atsplteation under Order 9 Rute 9 read with Section 151 of the C.PI.C. for restoration of the suit in which notices were issued to Ijhe contesting defendants and thereafter, by holding sufficient c^use for the non-appearance of XI-HC—78 t^1i( •av, ar^iw '3~s[ '<inw<i, w^w.'w, fsidi-yy w.f.C^^) ^" ^/<?52- an^T 1ra?r (1i?f3^E?) 5a a l^. -thg-pistrrtm7rgsp5naerm&-T~srr2f allowed and the suit was restoredl Learned counse! for the pe( was pending since 2002 and th^ himself and therefore, the plaintil for relief and the order passed by|he Tria! Court is patentiy illegal. Having heard the learned record, 1 am of the considered Ot^inion that the Trial Court has not committed any iilegality or irre^ularity in passing the impugned order. It is trite law that approaj been preferred by the plaintiff. that the Trial Court shall decid preferably within a period of one ^ear. Certified copy as per rules. ^ •wrcfl ^^S •€• ^3iraxTsn^[ n*"Aprll, 2009, the applicaiion was- to its original number. itioners would submit that the suit suit was delayed by the plaintiff f/respondent no. 1 is not entitled |counset and having perused the ;h of Courts should be liberal fn j-Order9Rule9oftheC.P.C. In dealing wlth the application undej the instant case immediately aft^r 3 to 4 days, an application has herefore, the petition filed by the petitioner, has no merit the samje deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Since the matter is pendir^g in the year 2002, it is directed ^ the suit as early as possfble Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge