^" ^s^;.. ' .•••' ;*£N.1NTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / »<'NV/ f .y «?'' A' <v/ •^^ AT <s-'./' ^ WRIT PETITION 227 N0. Lh'b'1^ of 2010 Y-/ PETITIONER NON APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT Smt. Ranjana Dutta, aged about 32 years W/o Shri Biplab Dutta, R/o LIG 72, Phase II, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Niharika, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh VERSUS Shri Biplab Dutta, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri B.P.Dutta, R/o Netaji Subhash Chandra Road, Hanuman Mandir, Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT^ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORAR' OR THE LIKE '+ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. f2271 N0. 6687 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Ranjana Dutta Versus Shri Biplab Dutta WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA {Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.) : Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel alongwith Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, counse! for the petitioner. Shri P.C. Pant, coynselfortherespondent. ORALORDER (Passedon 7th dayoflVlarch; 2011) The instant petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of india calls in questiontheorderdated 14-10-2010 passed by Second Addltional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dyrg in Civil Suit No.SI-A/2010 whereby the petitioner's application for setting aside Vneex-parte orderwas dismissed. 2. Thefacts in brief areasunder: In a divorce petition filed by the respondent, petitioner did not appear on 18-06-2Q10 i.e a date fixed for recording of evidence. She was proceeded ex-parfe due to her non- appearance. The petitioner preferred an application" under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPCon 02-08-2)1 Qinter-aiia on the? grpund: she was unable to attend the Court on the date of hearing due to her iilness. The respondent vehementlyopposed the prayer, had fited order-sheet of Sessions CaseNo. 93/2009 in which petitioner appeared before the Sessions Court-, Korba on that date. It was contended by the respondeht that the petitioner had taken false piea before the Court of law and thus, her copduct is not equitable and prayer deserves to be dismissed; • Jli%?E£^'i;;' Kw 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute, she had appeared before Korba Court but trled to support the reason mentioned in the application by sayingshe did appear before the Korba Court for only a period of 15 mlnutes and in fact, she was unable to attend the Court situated at Durg and her applteation deserves to be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned, 5. Suppressing the fact of her appearance before the Korba Court an incorrect plea has been taken, Trial Court having found petitioner failed to assign good cause for her previous non- appearance, dismissed the application. If application itselfwas based on an incorrect plea then in the considered opinion of this Court the learned Triai Court has not committed any itlegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction underArticie 227 ofConstitution of India. 6. it is weli sett!ed principie of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constrtution of India, should refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, iilegality, irregularity or jurisdictionai error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 7. Accordingiy, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to. be and is hereby dismissed. | g^ \ N.K.Agrawal Judge j