^:»^ Cft y^ SII ^..J 11^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. /2010 Petitioner ^ t^ ^i Respondents 1. A0""' ^<^'nQy v<^^' ..?yr' ^'" ^'' /\ 2. Ashwini Kumar Sharma S/ o. Shri Lakhan Lal Sharma Sahu Aged about 48 years R/o. Shiv Niwas, 27 Kholi Vikas Nagar Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS Smt. Triveni Devi W/o. Late Pt. Ram Dayal Tiwari Aged about 60 years R/o. Devrikala Tahsil: Takhatpur Distt: Bilaspur (CG). _ f>j^^t^ State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Collector, Distt.: •^T^ Bilaspur (CG). - ^.^^^ ^ ^;'' ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.2229 of 2010 Petitioner Ashwini Kumar Sharma versus Respondents Smt. Triveni Devi and another Present: Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.2. Noone appearsfor respondent No.1 thoughserved. WritPetitiQnunderArticle227pftheConst[tutionoLIndia ORAL ORDER 7th (Passed on 7ln December, 2010) Heard. 2. Learned Court below has rejected the petitioner/defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2-9-2009. It was stated in the application that the summons issued by the Court has not been served on the petitioner/defendant because the summons was deliberately sent to Village Deorikala, wherein refusal of his father was endorsed knowing fully well that the petitioner is. residing at Shiv Niwas, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner'has never been served with the summons in the suit. 3. Learned trial Court has refused to set aside the ex parte order on the ground that since the petitioner's father has refused to accept ie summons, the sa.me has rightly been treated as valid service. /.- ^. .s^ '^ u 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the petitioner's address shown in the cause-title of the suit. The said cause-title has been submitted along with a covering memo on 28-4-2010. In the said eause-title of the suit, name and address of the petitioner is mentioned thus: "WSpft ^n^- ?pif fr^r ^J^T ^n^ ^ ^?t 48 ^, ^n'-^TTH^T f^TSTcp, t^TRft TTFT ^c|^|chcH|, d^^Tld d^ld^ f^ToTT Rtoll^^, W^ | ?TO'gO ^l^tl-l^l^, ^fS^-2, ^ f^PTT ^t? ^ ^TFT, fcldl^l^ ^T^ftcT ^T f^TcTT f^cTTFTy, 'E^T |" 5. On perusal of the above name and address of the said cause- title, it would appear that the plaintiff herself has described the address of the petitioner/defendant as presently residing at Ganganagar, Sector-2, Near Dubey Kirana Store, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, however, it does not appear from the impugned order that the summons was ever sent to the petitioner/defendant on this address. 6. In view of the abovg, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not duly served with the summons in the suit, as no summons was sent to the petitioner on the address shown in thesuit. 7. Consequently, the impugned order, refusing to set aside the ex parte order, needs interference and it is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal