-< IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 CIVIL REVISION N0. l&D /2011 Vijay Kumar Tiwari, aged about 52 years, son of Heeralal, Caste Brahman, R/o. Bhoghapara Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G) .y y ^PPLICANT DEFENDANT FtESPONDENTS I'LAINTIFF 1. v\ ^w VERSUS Virendra KumarTiwari, aged about 40 years, son of Bhuvan Lal Tiwari, Caste Brahman, R/o. R/o. Bhoghapara Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) CSSfIl. REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF DFD.No.2 y tf -C--A -€ ^ CIVIL PROCEDURE ss^t /€ \ APPLSCANT Dsfenciani RESPQNDENTS Piaintiff HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT Bii-ASPUR Civi! Revlsion No. 100 of 2011 V«ayKumar Tiwari Versys Virendra Kumar-Tiwari and another CiViL REViSON UMDER SSCTiON 11S THE CODE OF CIViL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'bie KSr. N.K. Asarwai. J.) Present : Mr. Harsh IVtahant, counsel for the appiicant. Mr. Ssnjeev Agrawa!, PL for the State/respondent No.: ORDER (05.39.2011} The instant eivll revision is directed against the order dated ?.6.2011 passed by' Civil Judge, Class-l!, Navagarh, District Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No.5/2010 whereby and vvhereunder the respondents' applicatlon under Order 9 Ru!e 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "She Code") has been atowed. 1. 22 2. Brief facte of the case are as under: The matter vvas flxed for app!lcant's argument on the appiication fl!ed by respondent No. 1 under Section 151 of the Cods on 30.11.2009. The matter was already argued by respondent No.1. On that day, due'to non-appearance of respondent No.1 the suit was dismi^ed. Fifteen days time barred appiication was fited by respondent No. 1 for restoration of civil suit aiong with appiication for condonation of deiay, inter alia on the ground:' on 30.11.2009 respondent No.l's presence was not necessary inasmuch as it was for the applicant to make hp submission and thereafter Court has to pass order and'suit could not have been dismissed on tha{ date for respondenf No.1 s non-appesrance. 3. Lsarned trial court considering every aspect of the csse and the fact that ori, 30.11 .2009 presence of respondent No. 1 was not necessary, aliovv'etl the applicatlon for restoration of suit filed by respondent No:1. '^^T A ^: .^ *»..«-"r '°^3@I5t£s:rl 4. Respondent No.1 has also filed application for condonation of deiay in filing restoration application. On 30.11.2009 the suit was fixed for appilcant's argument on respondent No.1'3 appiication fiied under Section 151 ofthc Code. On that day, respondent's presence was not necessary inasmuch as fhe matter has to be argued by appllcant. Therefore, the Sria! Court ohould not have dismissed the suit on that day for respondents non appearancc. Restoration application was also snnexed with appiicatlon fcr condonation of delay assigning good csuse fo condone the delay. Such appiication needs libera! consideration. 5. Having heard learned counse! for the appiicant and havjng perused the order Impugned, ! do not find any iltegahty in thc order impugned passed by the triai Court wsrranting interference of this Court in exercise or its revisional jurisdictlon. 5. in view of above, I do no find any merit !n ihe submissions made by learned courise! appearing for the appiicant. 7. Accordingly, the civi! revlsion, being devoid of merit, Is !iab!e t< be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. s^^ ^-5^e 1