HtGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bieShri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. MA.No. 45 of 2008 1. Pawan Lakda, S/o Kenda Lakda, Aged about 45 years, 2. Shivcharan, S/o Pawan Lakda, Aged about 20 years, 3. Anil S/o Pawan Lakda, Aged about 17 years, 4. Soni, S/o Pawan Lakda, Aged about 15years, Respondents 3 & 4are minors, through: their natural guardian/father Pawan Lakda, S/o Kenda Lakda, Aged about 45 years, All above R/o Village Kot, Tahsil Lundra, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Kishun Ram,S/o Chartu Ram, Aged about 45 years, 2. Naresh Patei, S/o Kishun Ram Patel, Aged about 35years, Both above R/o Village Lamgaon, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (CG) 3. Chhattisgarh Stete Electricify Board, Through:Assistant Engineer, Batauli, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (nal of the Code of Ciyil^rocedure ABpetlants Ptesntiffe Resoondents Defendants Present: Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appeilants. ORAL OraDER (Passed on 05-05-2008) Heard on I.A.No.1,an apptication forcondonation of delay in fiiingthisappeal. Since application under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. was not entertained by the trial Court and the appellants/plaintiffe were ordered to pay Court fees, the application for condonation is being disposed (rf without notice to the other side. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it isallowedand the deiay in filingthis appeal is condoned. This appeal is being heard and disposed of atthe stage of admission without notice to the other side. (2) Heard iearned counsel for the appellants. (3) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 29.12-2007 passed by fte District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.0/20)7, whereunder the miscellaneous proceedings drawn on the application under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC for permission to sue as an indigent person was not entertained by the leamed District Judge on ttie ground that on the date of presentation of the application, the appellants/plaintifls were not present in person before the Court. (4) The impugned order does not show ftat despite direction by the Court, learned counsel for the appeltants/plaintiffis had failed to keep the appellants/plaintiffs present in person before the Court. It also does not divulge that counsel for the appellants/plaintiffewas given an opportunity to move an application for exempttng the appellants/plaintiffs from appearing in person before the Court. (5) Leamed counsel for the appellants/plaintiffe undertookto keep the appellants/piaintiffe present before the District Judge, Ambikapur on 09-05-2008. (6) Considering the object for institution of suit by indigent persons and the provision contained in Rule 3 of Order 33 of C.P.C., 1 am of the considered opinion that one opportunity should be granted to the appeilants/plaintiffe to appear in person before the Court so that an enquiry into the indigence of the appellants/plaintiflb as eontemplated by Rule 4 of Order 33 CPC be made by the Court. (7) In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowal. The appellants/plaintifrs shalt appear bsfore the Disfrict Judge, Ambikapur on 09-05-2008. On such appearance, the learned District Judge shall proceed in accordance with !aw regarding the merits ofthe claim and the property of the appellants/plaintiffis. Anjani (8) A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Ambikapur, forthwitti. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge