") A IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.^^<;7-2-/2010 PETITIONERS Defendants ^- ^y .^ •^x^''^^ r.^<^p^ ^y €.- \^ Y-.. ^z' 'tJ'^^^^g^ J ^*-^ M? 1. Surajiya@ Bifaiya, W/o Aalam, D/o Late Sukhram, Aged about 45 years. 2. Menhandi, Wd/o late Sukhram, Aged about 60 years, Occupation Agriculture. Both R/o Village Kamalpur, P.S. & Tahsil - Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Raimun Ram, S/o Late Dhuler, Caste-Gond, Aged about 80 years, R/o Village Kamalpur, P. S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Surajpur, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition f227) No. 4972 of2010 l\ Petitioners/ Defendants Respondents PLaintiffs Surajiya & Another Versus Raimun Ram&Another WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITmiON OF^DIA fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri JK Shashtri, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 05.01.2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 26.04.2010, passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 09/10, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's/defendant's appeal was rejected as time barred, 2. Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the court below has acted without Jurisdiction iii rejecting the appeal as time barred without affording an opportiinity offiling the medical certificate for explaining the cause ofdelay in filing the appeal resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner's rights. 3. On the other hand, Shri Shashtri, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the order passed by the appellate court. ^^. ^ n ^^^^ | '^^y IA ^) 5. 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the order impugned, this court is of the opinion that the court below ought to have given an opporhinity to the petitioners to file medical certificate to explain the delay caused in filing the appeal as documentary support to his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was necessary in the interest ofjustice. In view ofabove, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2010, passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the court below to decide the petitioner's application filed under Section 5 ofLimitation Act after granting him one months' time to prodiice the medical certificate. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge 1