Single Beneh IN TH&HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR PETITIONERS (Defendants) ^- ^^y A <'y»* ^/^/- w^ y^ ^' -/''' ^ z ^' .^ WRIT PETITION N0. .^?&2-^004 1. Agrahij S/o shri Baisakhu sahu, aged about 45 years, occupation agriculturisfc Jageshwar Sm.gh S/o shri Baisakhu sahu, aged about 40 years, occupation agriculturist. Kumari Bai D/oshri Thanwar Sahu, aged about 22 years, occupatiori agriculturist, all resident of vitlage Latabod, teshsU Balod dist. Durg (C.G.) Latkhor S/o Govind Sahu, resident of Fhafhadih Raipur, Near Nili building Raipur dist. Raipur(C.G.) 5^ Birghu Ram ,S/o Govind Sahu, resident of Ghafhadih Raipur, Near NiIibuUdmg Raipur dist. Raiipur (C.G.) Bideshi Ram S/o Govind Sahu resident of Bharat Medical Stores Raipur dist. Raipur (C.G.) ^^'Dayalu S/o shri Thukel Sahu, aged about 45 years, occupation agriculturist. Heeru Ram S/o shri Thukel Sahu, aged about 43 years, occupation. agriculturist, petitioner No.7 85 8 resident of village Latabod, tahsil Balod, dist. Durg(C.G.) Dhaniya Bai W/o Jhadi Sahu, aged about 40 year&, resident of village Dadhaari, tehsil Balod, dist. Durg (C.G.) Gaytri Bai. W/o Shukhi Ram Sahu, aged about 26 years, occupation-agriculturist, R/0 . AmUdiU, Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 'VERSUS . . " • - 8. RESPONDENTS (Plaintiff) ^. (Defendant). ^ Smt.KushalaBaiWd/olate Shri Ghewarchand Jain, aged abbut 70 years, occupation house wife resident of Sawdesee khadi Bhandar Hatari Bajar Durg Dist. Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector durg, dist. Dur^ (C.G.) WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 Bii^r^r ^•TR;3[I^T itlK ulg(l 3^ ^nqRpr^ ^ftgire, fsiciiyy 3ii^i Mach »^."^^7g^/.„ . li*<rti*tii*'"""'""'''""7"^ 200<2L ^aS." """••• aii^i <<<iiwgf?(r 11-3-2005 On a mention being made, Mr. R.S. Patel, counsel for t( Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel L^wyei The petitioners have preferi|ed Constitution of India, being aggri< by the Additiona! Distnct Judge, B^iod, DistricS Jucige aliowed the appfical Section 5 of the Limitation Ac( miscelianeoys appeal. Brisf facts ieaciing to fiiirig herein fiied a civil suit for po( petitioners herein in which regpoi| matter was flxed for the purpose the matter was fixed respondent No.1 and her coun; dismissed in defautt against whicj 9 Rule S of the C.P.C. was fiisd, Court on the ground .thatthe suit due diiigence. Aggrieved by that| appsaf betore the Addlti'ona! Distrfct by limitation by 28 days. Theref^f under Section 5 of the Limitatiorl expiaining the de'ay that on 27-1 she returned on 27-3-2002.thenl ths suit and on coming to know ^ibout _2QQ2_ _[Q._SLiGQQrLof_tta^_^s! flie case istaken upfor hearing. tfie petitioners. ^wyer for the Stetefrespondent No.2. this writ pstition under Article 227 of the jved by the order dated 30-S-2004 passed i, Durg, whereby.ttie tearned Adciitiona! [ion filed by respondent No.l pfaintiff under for condonation of 'deiay Sn fiiing fhe ipport Wlicaiifin <tii<i?<"i41-( WRTt'ffte^t <Ri<<ii< ^sri^iran^RT |>fthis wrif pStition are that responcieni No.1 isessipn and compensation against the ident No.1 addyeed her evidencs and the (^ners'^defenaants' evidence, and for that |on S-8-2000. Hows/er, on that date ^ei were not present and the matter vvas an application for rBstoration under Order fc|ut ths sams was aiso dismissed by the tria! [s not being prosecuted bythe plaintiffwith (order, respondent No.1 filed misceitaneous ;r|ct Judge, however, tfiat appea! was barred ^re, an appfiGation for condonatibn of dejay Act was fited by respondent No.1 herein 1002. she went to Rajasthan and from thws shs came to know about She dismissai of ^ibout that fact she filed this appeat on 4-4- unci^r-Ssctlon 5 of the i^liTutstion Act. __ tsfe^—— • )i XI-HC-22 an^TW l^ifesn^r ?b^|ch R?(ff5B' .A loma .5 w. 3^''<11<lt.ua, siTftM'IS, [acliuy 311^1 qsrai ^.;..u..r..'^2.SaA——, *ll«rtlsb*licb'••"-•••-•••'••'<"-•• ^- g^ 200^- ^•4. sii^<i 8«tiw<ifer coufisel respondent No.1 hersin fiisd affidavit fited by respondent N herein and considering the appeilate Court condoned respondentNo.1 herein. have heard learned Having heard learned cij impugned ordar. Perusa! ofthj learned Court beiow is based No.1 -herein filed an afRdavit ^- eontroveriSd by the petitiSners already adduced by respondenp fixed for evjdenc®pf Uie petitio) being a lady she was not requi) tn the circumstances, in pass| Court befow has not committeB interference by this Court by 11 227 ofthe Constitution of Indial same Is liabie to be dismisst admission stage itself. No cost^ Consequentiy. M,(W.}°1 disposed of. jp affldavit. As per the impugned order that .^o.1 was not controverted by the petitioners ^und shown by respondent No.1,the learned (e delay and ailowed the application of 'niiFci'n'f iiiiflTfttecfl'<(:s|'UI< ^)3lR|IT 311^1 ujisei for the petitioners on admission. " iunsei for the petjtionera, i have perused the 1^ impugned order shows that the prder ofthe tn sound reasonings snd thattoo respondent ^iowing the cause of delay and that was not hersin. M6reover; whsn aii the evidence was No.1 in support of her case, the matter was wrs'/defendants' herein and respondent No.1 fed to remain present on each and eveiy date, |ng the impugned order, in my opinion, the any illegaiity or irreguiarityi which requires rjvoking extraorainary jurisdiciiori under Articie Therefora, this writ petitioh has no merii, ihe id and it is accordingly, dismissed, at the [No.5064/2004 and i.A.No.9517/2004 stand Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^y^)