x ^ 3 !N THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0.l-^r,/ 2006 Apulicants Defendants y. Bahniki S/o Biro Ram Aged about 45 years. 2< Sahuram S/o Biro Ram Aged about 40 years. 5/. Lalraai S/o Jatru, Aged about 55 years . Sidhraj S/o Lalram Aged about 28 years. AU R/o Jamhore TehsU - Saxnri, Sub-TehsU & Police Station Shankargarh, Dist. Sarguja(C.G.) V ER SU S Respondents Plaintiffs r RaidaramS/o Sundra aged About 62 years. Paidaram S/o sundra aged about 60 years . Both R/o Jamhore TehsU - Samri, Sub-TehsU & Police Station Shankargarh, Dist. Sarguja(C.G.) Y^-""^ CIVIL REVISION U/S 115'OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3??7^T^TfiF7W i^H ^I^T sh^l<^ ^^E? ^I^I^^ ^TlSwi^, f^TRTy i?prw%^%"'^^"-^:^^""'"'"""""<^2oo 6 ^IT 11T^^(^3^^) 2-0 '^^i^''?ri^"^n^? ^s^id4i'f'5CT^t'^ fe^ <r^^t< ^T 3?ftP:[ ^^t S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Nk. Aaarwal 10.11.2009 Shri Arun Shukla, Advojsate for applicants. Shri AN Pandey, Advocjate for respondents. With the consent of thel finally. Heard on admission. The instant revision 28.08.2006, passed by lllrd| Misc. Civil Appeal No. 08/0^ passed by IVth Civil Judge, Cj 08/05. parties, the matter is taken up for hearing is directed against the order dated Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, in , arising out of order dated 21.12.2005, .lass II, Ambikapur, in Misc. Civil Suit No. The fact briefly stated a^ under: On 06.07.2004, the apjplicants/defendants appeared in the civil suit through their counsel Shri PL Yadav and thereafter due to their non appearance, the trial court Iproceeded exparte on 17.07.2004 and thereafter exparte decree was passed on 17.08.2004. Against that, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the applicants which was dismissed as time barred. Thereagainst appeal preferred, which was also dismissed. H^nce this revision. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the applicants never engaged Shri PL Yadav as their counsel in the suit; summon^ were never served upon the applicants j and therefore, the application is flled within limitation from the date of i . - • ': . • . . _ .^_^ _ 'l ^^^^ ^^1^1 <T^F{T^iT^—FS/95—11 /200>.—i,00,000.. -—- 1:..:1- ^^ ^T f^ni^ ^l? ^^ 1PPRT Sahu «-.*---:;^;.By-;?^..^,-..- \^%| ^Jfsn^Zf, '^TtiwKo, f^TRT^ TOW^W:^"""1M::"-"""""'""'^200^ ^TI^T ^S^R (^i-W^i) ^ 'FWRl^s?^ knowledge and the courts ^elow have erred in holding that the applicant's application was tjn^i|e barred and then erred in dismissing the said application. 1 have heard the counsjel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. Undisputedly, this plea ^f not engaging Shri PL Yadav as counsel in the case has not been ta that the said counsel was this effect. Undisputedly, the applicants in the case and th barred application without an^ ^T^FR^ '??P^f ^ "fe^ ^F^l^K ^ ^fw s^t^ ;en by the applicants before the courts below. In the absence of any ^xplanation or challenge it cannot be said |not appointed by the applicants after receiving summons of the su|t. Moreover, affidavit is also not filed to jsaid counsel appeared on behalf of the ^reafter in the absence of applicants as well as their counsel, the tria| court proceeded exparte against them and thereafter exparte decreje was passed. In dismissing the time prayer for condoning delay and without filing any application therefor, |if the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is dismissed then, in ^he considered opinion of this court, the courts below have not committed any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in passing the said prders. In the result, the revisiop being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at ^dmission stage. -—- - - Sd/- j N.K.Agarwal Judae T^J^^^ iI^E"RU^^T^T^—FS/95—11 /200H—1,00,000.