[-HC-22 SD^I^iT R-I ani^r shHicb ^l[?a ^ -S^'amRPT, '^ftwre. PlWKiy 3TI^T T^ra? tlllCTl shlich """ ' ^n. 200 •"•"fa^sr' sii^i ^aiw ^if??t S.B. HOWBLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J W.P. (Art. 2271 W.P. (Art. 2271 PETITIONEaS (1) tUe President, M|unicipal Council, Kirandul, (2) Tljie Chlef Executive Officer, M|unicipal Council, Kirandul, T^hsU and district Dantewara (Defendanl/N.As.). Vejrsus RESPONDENT: 20.6.2008 By this comm.on order Arttcle 227 offhe Constltutioti as the same are directed 14A March, 2008 p^sed by whereby applications of ^>i^[<n4lTl 'RTR^rf ^ fs^l <f<i<^i< ^T SlfigtT 3D^[ 6.3061 OF 2008 & [To.3062 OF 2008 J^ldeep Makan, aged 29 years, of Shri Shyani Smidar M|akan, resident of main market, tahsil and district D^ntewara (CG) (Plaa.ntiff/Applvxtnt) s4n M|akan, Ktrandul Shri Somnath Venna, c^unsel for the petitioners. |both the above petitions under of India, are being disposed of s^41nst the impugned order dated |dvil Judge, Class-I, Dantewara the respondent/plaintiff for [^"^ F -BC-22 sn^r^i h'u'h svS^i 5t)'Hicb yfia T^ ^ww^, ^Tfl^'l'i, fawi'My sni^r 'V^K 11NCTI g,^jq,-------------'g^ 200 'I^^T" aii^r ^itWdf?^ •I- restoration ofthe civil suit No which were disDiissed on 26. 2-B/02 & l-B/02, respectively, 1|2.2005, have been aflowed. isbued tiAe Grievance ofthe petitionjers ffled on 23.1.2006 after 29 Notices were directed to be isbued upon the petitioners, howev^ 28.2.2008 the Gourt was without Reader ofthe Coiirt posted 14.3.2008. Because of absenfc so fbied, they were proceeded| the sam.e date atlowed recording any evidence of| wifhout affording an Since fhe date 14.3.2008 Court could not have proceed^d thb opportuipty wds Considering the fact thajt were filed by the respondentt disnussal and thereafter, notii); the petitioners, vhich were not file their appearance befckre <=tii*il<n41i ^H<^T'^ f«*^i<^'^i< ^aipgiTsn^i is that the applications were days of dismissal of the suit. and the sam.e were served ;r, on the date of hearing Le. presidii^ officer and tfae matter for further hearing on ;e of the petitioners on the date ex-parte and the trial Court on above applications without the respondent/plaintifi" and ofhearing to the petitioners. not the date of hearing, the against the petitioners. I have heard learned 4ounsel for the petitioners and perused the im.pugned order. fhe applications for restoration ./plaintlff within 29 days of fhe ;es were directed to be issued to d|uly served upon theia, who did the Court on the date when [TNi, sa. an^i^iT f<-li?b 311^1 »^tch^fi^ ^ ^ T T3 '•<<l'i<lcl'Ll, ^Tfl'M'ld. r«iMi'yy sn^r TR^ *1MCTI g,t,|q,-----------"—g^200 •fq^I' sn^TTOtWHftg the laatter was fixed, I do nol where any maiufest injuslice petitioners, whlch warrantjs jurisdiction under Article 227| In the result, both substance deserve to be diii itself and are accordinglv, dislmissed ^he petitions being devoid of ^inissed at fhe adm.ission stage A copy of this W.P.(Art.227) 3062/08. orddr ehNtd'4hTffW^ ^ f^t ^ ^1< •^3iP<ra aii^i consider present to be a fit case has been caused to fhe e< . mterierence in exercise offhe Constitution of India- be kept in the record of Sd/- DbirendraMisbra Judge [Tft^ ^Fsi^l