aii^i ^i f<-fi+ ^V 3TT^9r)<4iq) v. -F 'TS? •*ii^idAi, »ti1'H<i<o, [sKni'yy KiKdi *tii+ --W-1?-tslD--4-^-::57:^ 200 s"" 311^1 TI^T ('^f^^I) wirar ^ifet aii^i PETITlONER: -V NDENT: ftA/rit Petition under Article Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, c' Shri Rakesh Pandey, coun1 The petltioner by the instar 21s' Dscember. 2004 passed (Annexure-P/1) whereby iearne1 Janiair has confirmsd the onj. 4-7-2001 passed in M'sc. Case IN 3rief!y stated racts of the the petit!oner fiied an appl.ication| restorstlon ofthe civii su'f, whichl !n the said pi'ocseding, on the di, shNl<n<fli 'RTR^ff ^f Fs^ <^nt^.K ^sifimaii^T Shankar Lai, S./o Data R.am Sao, Caste Teii, Aged about 63 years, R/o ° Viiiage Dongari, Chowki 0~i—! oaiooa, i ansii janjgir, uisii. JBIii! fersus- ^^('"Si-^^-S '^f"l |iF-UH3?np8 {^1^) Madan Lal, S/o Goverdhan Prasad, Caste Kaser, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Dongari, Chowki - Baloda, Tahsil Janjgir,: Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) 227 ofthe Constitution of india) Mlshra. J. ctunise! for the petitioner. - pei for the respondent. !t Detitlon has impugned the order dated in Misc. Civi! Appea! No.24/2004 3 3ro Additiona! District Judge (FTC) y of 2nd Civil Judge C'ass-2 dated o.16/84. ;ase giving rise to this' petrtion are that indar .0-dsr 9 Ru!s 9 of the C.P.C. for ;. ^j+^f ^- 3 \^i! -'L^ l^ •^7:1 ^^ Slw ^mf • •J ^ '-^ - ?^'^ was dismissed for want of prosecut'on. >sth1 of origlna' defendant, the'pet;'"oner XI-HG—78 diz| •<11<IIM'4,8>'tIly'l<o, fsidiy^i an^r ^a R-fl'ii ^sn ^n^Tsfttjiqi v *<i*iMia»*iicii --••—• sn^i 'v^v (. l°if^«<<^r) wiw^ifersii^r „*: 'arve counsel the aetitioner "Wl 200 witarih tiTOff-if fsizt ^i^re ^sififHaii^r iUUl^ U!£3LIVil&^. Appeai against the dismissa! | where summons not sen/ed in " " - . -_ - 1 . . consequence of plaintiffs failure t^ take necessary steps under Orde' 9 Rute 2 CPC is not maintainable ^nd the remedy to aggrieved party is proceeding under Order 9 Rul^ 4^f the CPC i.e. by bringing a fresh suit subject to the law of iimltation' setting aside dismissal before the] From bare perusal of the| |3r by moving suitable app'ication for bame Court. imouaned order and the .Qrovisions contajned in Order 9 Rule 2 and (prder 9 Rute 4 of the CPC, this Ccurt is of the consldered opinlon tha^ there is no 1'legality, infirmity or jurisdsctional error commltted by t(ie Court below warranting interfsrence in exercise ofjurisdiction underA(ticle 227 ofthe Constitution of !ndia. In. the result, the petition b^ing devoid ofsubstance deservesto be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra i Judge (iiA UIlA. -^..llL,