^ -'i;"'- ^v .''•' 's^^y •s-'-^ffK 1-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.3915 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Defendant)/ (Judgment debtor) RESPONDENT/: (Plaintiff)/ (Decree holder) Mohan Verma S/o Sri Baliram Verma aged about 41 years, R/o Village Kothroudh, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Gajaru Chelak aged about 46 years, S/o Sri Fatte Lal Chelak, R/o Village Dondekala, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (21-7-2011) 1. By this writ petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 29-3-2011 passed by the 7 Additional District Judge, Raipur in Execution Proceeding No.64/2009, whereby the application for stay of execution of decree for recovery of money has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned, the ex parte order dated 28-7-2010, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the application for stay of execution af decree. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex parte decree has been passed against the defendant/petitioner, the petitioner/defendant was assured by his counsel that he will contest the case and that the petitioner was not required to present in the Court, and on the assurance of his counsel, the petitioner was dependent upon his counsel, but counsel for the petitioner/ defendant was not representing the petitioner properly and, therefore, the case was decided ex parte against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed application for setting aside the ex partedecree and has also prayed for staying of the execution which has been illegally dismissed by the Court below. 4. This is not the case in which summon has not been served upon the petitioner, but the petitioner has engaged his counsel and, thereafter, the Court has proceeded ex parte against the petitioner lierein and has passed the ex parte deoree. This is decree for recovery of money. No irreparable loss can be i^; j iW^^M^SS^^^^^^^^^^^sss^s^ss^^si^^^^s^s^^^^^s^^si^^s^^ •^E-; caused to the petitioner. Consequentlyi while dismissing the application the Court below has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of supervisoryjurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. No order as to costs. 5. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge