^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Respondents M.A.No.113of2008 Dr. Sohan Lal Sahu, S/o Shri Ralanath Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Tiranga Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur (CG) Versus 1 Manharan Lal Chandra, S/o Shri Siv Prasad Chandra, Old R/o H.No.31/10, .Bramhanpara, Raipur (CG) Present and New address- C/o Shri Banwari Lal Sahu, P.W. D. Office, Near Gynodaya School & Ramesh S.T. D. P.C.O, Akaltara Road Janjgir (CG) Permanent & ancestral address-Village Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) 2 State Bank of India, Jaistambh Chowk, Main Branoh, Raipur (CG) Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 iw) of CPC. 1SQ8. Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu, oounsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 10.12.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2008 passed by the 10 Additional District Judge, Distt Raipur (CG) rejecting the application filed by the appellant una'er Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC on the ground that the appellant had failed to shoy>' sufficient cause for the delay in making the said application. (3)-"" "stt is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appeilant that the appeiiant-who was the guarantor was represented throughout in civii suit No.9- B/2006 which was decided on 23.6.2007. An application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for review of the saicf judgment and decree was filecl on 09.05.2.008 aiong with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application on the ground that due to his professional ocoupation as a Doctor, he could-not Tile the application for review in time. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant plaoed reliance on Jai/a Chandra IVIohaoatra vs: Land Acauisition Officer, Ravaaada 2005-SCC-9-1 23-SC, Natjonal Housina Coo, SocietvJ-td. vs: State ofRaia^han 2005-SCC-12-149 and rfS -^ ^ ^' \- Priya Kumaran Silks Trade Ltd. vs. Devendra 2004-SCC-13-19 and submitted that the debtor respondent No.1 was vi/rongly proceeded ex parte on 22.8.2006 by the tiral Cout and therefore the trial Court ought to have condoned the detay for the reasons mentioned in the applioafion for condnation of de!ay in filing the application uncfer Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (5) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, 1 have perused the order and find that the rejection of the appiication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and as a consequence thereof rejection of the application under Order 47 Rute 1 CPC by the trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference. The appeai is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. 1 Sd/- Dilip Raosaiieb Deshmukh Judge w: