R SiSiii-i'S^^S^iy^iW.r.tWija^^ c^,6Y- ^" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDUCATURE OF CHHATTJSGARH ATBILASPUR M.A. No. .........^L^'./2003 Sfngle Bench APPELLANTS: ^•DEFENDANTS y" D ^ - 1- 2- SMT. SUSHILA BAI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WD/0 LAKHANLALSONI RAJKUMARI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/0 DAUCHAND SONI ^^^ ^s^-' ..*>^" ^\^' ^ BOTH R/0 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT COLONY, RUDARI, TAHSIL AND DISTT. DHAMTARI (C.G.) 3- RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI KU. BINDESHWARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI .$- VIJENDRASONI , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI S- KU. BEBI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI ^- KU. PUSHPA / AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI KU. CHHOTI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS D/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI DINESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS / ' S/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI |@- RAMNARAYAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/0 LATE LAKHANLAL SONI /f ALL R/0. MAHAMAYA PARA, MAIN ROAD ARANG, TAH.- ARANG, DISTT.-RAIPUR (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS ^- > 2. SHIVLAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/OPANNALALSONI R/0 KANKALI TALAB, RAIPUR DISTT. RAIPUR(C.G.) -MUNNA LAL SONI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/0 BHUSHANLAL SONI R/0 THAHRAI MOHALLA, JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P.) ^il.. —^•^^ @ 2- 7"/- ^ ^/4- 3 ^ ^6. ^7/7- $.8. ^ 9. s 10. MOTILALSONI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/0 BHUSHAN LAL SONI R/0 THAHRAI MOHALLA, JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P.) SMT. SHANTIBAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WD/0 MOHANLAL SONI MADANLAL SONI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/0 MOHANLAL SONI GOPAL SONI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/OMOHANLALSONI NARESH SONI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/OMOHANLALSONI GHANSHYAM SONI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/0 MORANLAL SONI RADHESHYAN SONI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/0 MOHANLAL SONI GOVIND SONI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/0 MOHANLAL SONI ^" ALL ABOVE R/0 THAHRAI MOHALLA, JABALPUR, TAH 85 DISTT. JABALPUR (C.G.) 11. SMT. SUKHRANI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS WD/0 PANNALAL SONI R/0 MAUJA KURUD, MANDIR HASAUD TAH. 8s DISTT. RAIPUR (C.G.) ^' APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE l(t) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE T XI-HC—78 y-sr-^rrqT^T, -^fl^-^, •N^fRTy ^..?r^fA:..5.^....... ^? •a^^i^I^^ c ^>^ 05.11.2004: - Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel fo^ Shri G.S.Agrawal, counsel for r^ Heard counsel for the respectiv^ The defendants in the suit delivered by the trial Court filed an ariplication before III Additional District Judge, Raipur obviously by engagin^ a lawyer. Admittedly when the appeal was taken up on 22.09.19i reported no instructions, with the According to the appellants they rece |7, the counsel for the appellants j-esult the appeal was dismissed. il/ed a letter from their counsel which is dated 17.09.1999and they met hii|n on 22.10.1999 for the purpose of preparing the case namely the appe^\ for final hearing and at that time they were not informed about the dis|nissal of the appeal. In fact, in the letter the appellants were duly informejd that the appeal would be taken up on 16.11.1999. After meeting the la|A/yer, they came to know that their appeal had been dismissed already appellants then filed an application for appeal can be disposed of on me|-its. The application filed by the appellants was dismissed by III Addi aggrieved by the impugned order the pl'esent appeal has been filed. There is no dispute that the ap^ellants a lawyer by name Shri Shrama. It is reported no instruction on 22.09.1991 not inform the appellants about the and he did r'^ do so, probably he ^N^JH ^P^f ^ fe^ l^f^R . ^^w^t^ the appellants. iSpondent No. 1. parties. eing aggrieved by the judgement for default on 22.09.1997. The restoration of the appeal so that the ional District Judge, Raipur. Being filed an appeal by engaging \ot known as to why the said counsel !t is evident that the counsel did djsmissal of the appeal filed by them Iwas under an impression that the 4. r c^) XI-HG—78 ^w^tT%^n^» ^^ ^fl^icriq, '^f^FR, I^TOy .^..:.6:.^:.....q!.s^... ^2003 ^n^i'^r^N' ^IST[ W^T s^Hi^ W^T ^ra^ (^T^^) ^^TW^ft^3?it^T -2_- ^pri^^'3?R^?f "^f fe1c2t T^?R ^3^H<3?i^[ €- t-^ ^> appeal should have been adjou|-ned for a further date. So far as the appellants are concerned, on 2^.10.1999 they came to know about the dismissal of the appeal on 25.10.1999 they filed a necessai restored and disposed of on ^2.09.1997. Immediately thereafter on |y application so that the appeal could be imerits. It is not as if the appellants deliberately or intentionally did i^ot prosecute the matter by not meeting their counsel in the year 1997 t>r 1998 or 1999. It is also not that the appellants have been in the hafcjit of dragging on the matter by adopting same tactics. The dispute relat^s toan immovable property, therefore in the interest ofjustice, the appella|its must be given one more opportunity. In this view of the matterj the District Judge shall dispose January, 2005 and report to thij parties shall co-operate so thatj with the directions ofthis Court. | the appeal is allowed. It is directed that of the same on merits on or before 31 st S Court. Needless to mention that all the the teamed Judge will be able to comply Parties are entitled for cei|tified copy ofthis order. Sd/- Justice .^ ^.\