^L-L_^l <^ A G IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^ gencB Civil Revision N0. l^ OF 2011 APPLICANTS : Jk" Shree Mai Danteshwari Temple /DEFENDANT No. e Estate, Dantewada, Distt.- 1 to 3 South Bastar (C.G.) y. President i0 ^.L'r':'^ ^ Temple Estate, District South ^°-^s^ •^p-^^^""".^"- '^,.e,^@d^"' ....-""^ p^^"....-1-"""^' Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). 9^-- ^,,... o^-""'-o^ NON-APPLICANTS i. Manager Temple Estate, Dsitt.-Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS •.J^N.R.K. Pilley, S/o Shri K.K. Nayar, aged about 68 years, Caste- Kshatriya, R/o Dantewada, District-South Bastar (C.G.) PLAINTIFF ^' State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Dantewada, Distt.-South Bastar (C.G.). DEFENDANT N0. 4 '^~ CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (V HjGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BU-ASPUR Civil Revision No. 143 of 2011 APPLICANTS Dsfsndsnts Nc. 1 to 3 NON-APPLICANTS Shree Mai Danteshwari Temple Eibiai^, ucdniewdudi ctnu uirit?r53. [A Versus N.R.K. Pilley and another. CIVIL REVISON UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE C.P.C. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate, counsel for the applicants. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (0^.12.2011) 1. Instant revision is directed against the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dantewada in Misc. CivilAppealNo.03/2011. 2. Facts of the case are as under: The non-applicant No.1 filed a civil suit for confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and to declare the order dated 09.05.2006 as void and jllegal. On 06.10.2008 the case was fixed for hearing on application under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of CPC, on that date the suit was dismissed for non- appearance of respondent No. 1 . Within the time prescribed, respondent No. 1 preferred appljcation under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration but the same was also dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the respondent No. 1 has faiied to show sufficient cause for his non appearance. 3. Respondent No. 1 went in appeal and vide order impugned the lower appellate court restored the civil suit subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the appellants. ^,^.. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit: the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional illegality. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record induding order impugned. 6. I do not find any substance in the revision. The matter was fixed for hearing on temporary injunction application on 6.10.2008 jnstead of dismissing the application the court has dismissed the suit. Respondent No. 1 immediately filed apDlication for restoration of suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC within the time prescribed. 7. It is trite law that while deciding such applicatlons, the court's approach should be liberal. 8. Counsel for the applicant also failed to point out any illegality, perversity or absurdity in the order impugned, warranting jnterference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 9. The civil revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. Noorderastocosts. N.K.AgrawaI \A .^