5 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBtLASPURfC.G.V W.P.^efNo. ^ Q of2010 BETWEEN Gopat Mangwani, aged about 48 years S/o Late Raja Ram Mangwani, R/o Madhuban Road, Dayalbaridh, Tehsil & District: Bilaspur (C.G.) ^^^a^^ -fssy &^/",^ yn-"" PETmONER p^XIXtlTy-F/- ^ AND ^tp ^...-•' Om Prakash Agrawal, aged about 47 years, S/o Nihal Chand Agrawa), R/o Manin road, Bafoda, TelTsi(& District: JanJgH'-Champa, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDCNT <?eFev r<f~ ^- WRn'PEmTONtWDERARCT^£S2270^mEa3NSnnmONOFfNDfcft ^ fc HKH GOmtT Of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble ShriPi-ashant Kumar Mishra PEfEFIONER RESPONDENT WntPeWsm (227)No. 55680010 : Gopal Mangwani Versus : Om Prakash Agrawal Appearanee: Shri Shailendra Soni, cpunsel for the petitioner. WMT PETBig^ffl EK^^jl€a^M^^^W^ .ORm^^MKW'T'':' - ' •;; :' 1: (27.09.2010) Thetrialccn^has allov^lhe defendarit's applicationunderOrder 9 Rule7 ofCPG and faas set aside fhe ex-parte order dated 7/08/2010 and hasagainfixed thesuit for cross exanunation ofplaintiff'switness. (2) Fromthe record it would appearthatthe defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 7/08^010;The application under Qrder 9 Rule 7 ofCPC was niovedon 16^8/2010 (mthegrouildlhatIfaede^dant wasready tocross sxamme the plaintifF's witaess, however he has sustained fracture on his leg ashe fell dovm fi-om the tram whenhehad gone to Bargarh, Orissa in connection with some personal woA:. B was further stated iri the applicatioatfaathe was unable to move faeca.iise ofthe fi-acture andthis was mformedtothelawyer,butthelawyercoyldriotappearasfaecbuldnot hear thecall givenby thepeon. (3) The leamed Irial court faas accepted the reasMi and e^amrticm y ' . • • ••.'•••.-. ."••• • •. • . •• ' -. . '• •• •. ' ,.-.• ' • • . . . • •'. - / assigned in tfae application and has found that the defendant has made out a < M K ^ sufBcieat cause for his non-appearaneeon 7/08/2010 andtherefore the ex- ^' .'. . ••''.'' parte order deserves to be recalled. . (4) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would suhmitthat the defendant is in habit of seeking adjoumment and was not paying attention to the court proceedin& therefore theleamed trial court should aot have allowed the applieation under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPG. (5) On perusal ofthe impugned order, it would appear tfaat Ifae reason assigned for settingaside ex-parte order was about the illness ofthe party and the mistake of the counsel. The trial court has relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgnent in the matter of Lal Devi and another Vs. Vaneeta Jain and othere (2007) 7 SGC2UO. In Ifae opinion ofthis court, exercise ofjurisdiction under article227 ofGonstitution oflndia against exercise ofdiscretionbylfaetrialcourtuponfindingasufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte order, is not warranted. (6) Leamed counsel for the petitioner prays that since fhe matter is fixed for recordmg of evidence andthe conduct ofthe defendant is such that he will farther delay the proceeding, the trial court may kindly be directed todispose ofthe suit at anearlydate. Thoughthe suit was filedin July 2009, yet since the matter was already fixed for cross examination of plamtiffs witnesses, it is directed that fhe trial eourt shaU"do well to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible andpreferably withina period of8 months froni tfae date ofpresentation ofcertifiedcopy offhis arder. (7) With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed. ^^^sbta ^<5sbanST < +1 il:. K