•^-. »ini IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2-17 _ ^ f W. P. (0) No. l-l^ OF 2008. S. G. %L PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS ^ • '^ /4 . ^o ...•^ /^/ ^/0// ^^i/ ^ r ^ ^^ ^r^ RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS : 1) Praveen Kumar Pathak, aged about 34 years, S/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak, 2) Prafull Kumar Pathak, aged about 30 years, S/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak, Both R/o. Polsai Para, Shyam Nagar, Durg, P. O. & Distt. Durg (C. G.). VERSUS 1) Smt. Pratibha Dbcit, aged abidut 39 years, W/o. ShriAkhilesh Dixit, R/o. Q. No. 14-B/Street/Sector- 4, P. O. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C. G.) 2) Smt. Rukmani Pathak, aged about 72 years, Wd/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak, R/o. MIG-125, Padmanabhpur, P.0. and Distt. Durg (C. G.) 3) Pramod Pathak, aged about 40 years, S/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak now R/o. MIG- 125, Padmanabhpur, P. O. and Distt. Durg (C. G.) ^^^i.^*a<S." %y 4) Chhattisgarh Housing Board (Grih Nirman Mandal) through Chairman, Padmanabhpur, P. O. and Distt. Durg(C. G.) 5) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Durg (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BIIASPUR Sinale Besich: Hon'ble Shri Justlce Prashant Kumar Wrlt Petitlofi (2271 No. 7167 of 2008 PETtTIONERS Praveen Kumar Pathak and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Pratibha Dbsit and others. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel forthe petltioners. Shri AjayThakrey, counsel forrespondent No.1. Shn Sanjay Patel, counselfor respondent No.4. Shri Vinod Tekam, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. for other respondents. PETITION ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF ORAL ORDER Wlth the consent of for the the isheardflnaiSy. Petltloners the and of the (2) (3) 17-11-2008 by the triat Court 9 7 of C.P.C. the order the triat Court on 15-10-2007 • • • ' . • In thelr 9 7 read with Section 157 of C.P.C. the submftted that the summons for of the sult on 15-10-2CX37 was them and they had engag^i one Shri AbNshek Thakur as thelr counsei but It the sald comm'rtted and d'Kl not file hls VakaSatnama and thus the trlai Court proceeded ex-parte OR 15-10-2(X)7. Ttey Tmpression that the i© for them, In -2,' between they came to know that the su'rt for want of prosecution. Later op. the sylt and they the summons from the Court. They appolnt^lthe previous counsel, however on 05^)8-2008 they a new counsel who informed them that the triaS Court has already proceeded on 15-10-2007, thereafter they moved the applfeatlon for aside the ex-parte order. (4) Leamed counset tor the that the trial Court a of the to grant to the to the syft on merlts. He that the to granted by dlrectlng the to compensate the opposite party. (5) On the other hand for the have argued that the In the Court and the of the has not and the by the trial Court not call for (6) Havlng heard for the thte Court Is that the have to syfficlent for thelr the trlal Court. has on by the contravenlng the by the petitioners m their spplicatlon under Order 9 Rule 7 of G.P.C. it is trite !aw if the suit has not and <m the ex- ^- -3- any of the party has aiready accrued is not going to be the triat Court adopt In the to sult on $n the of this Court the party can be compensated the ex-parte order. (7) tn the the Impugned order Is The passed by the triat Court the petltlonera is set The psy of Rs.1,000/- to the No.1 to te paid before the trial Court. (8) The wrtt Is the dlrection. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge