IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227.) N039 L( /2o11 /,, RESPONDENTS : /’ Smt Sima Khobragade W/o Applicant before the family court Shri Abhiman Khopragade, aged about 43 years, R/o Ashish Nagar West Reshali Bhilai, Tahsil 8a District Durg (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W PETITIONER : / Abhiman Urkuda S/o Shri Non applicant before Kurkuda Vikram Khobragade, the family court aged about 45 years, R/o Qr.No. ' 3/C, Street No. 12 Sector —4, Bhilai ‘ § 1 3 .. £4r gaw Wt--""w Nagar, Tahsil 8r, District Durg (C.G.) > e git-V k;&w VERSUS v9\ W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227! No. 394 of201 1 PETITIONER : Abhiman Urkuda Versus ESPONDENT : Smt. Sima Khobragade M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THEWM CONSTITUTION OF INDIA jSB: Hon‘ble Mr. N.K. Agarwalhsl). Present : Shri GR Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner, ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24.01.2011) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2010, passed by the 11nd Add}. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Case No. 448/2009, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was diemissed. 2. The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on 17.02.2010 for his non‘appearance. The petitioner tiled an application on 16.03 .2010 for setting aside ex-parte order. 3. The trial court, by order impugned, dismissed the application tiled by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any medical certificate regarding his treatment. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion ofthis court, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. The valid reason was R /© /9 assigned by the petitioner which was not considered by the trial court while rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC.‘ In View of above, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 29.112010 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is allowed subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs payable to the claimants within a period of one month. The trial court shall permit the petitioner to hle his written within a period of one month § hom today and then shall proceed with the case on its own merits in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Since this petition is heard in the absence of respondents, they are hee to move with an appropriate application, if aggrieved. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Sahu Judge E.