HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.251 5 of 201§ Laxmi Bai, Widow of Late Maturam Satnami, aged about 66 years, R/o Ambikapur Road, Patthalgaon, District ~ Jashpur (CG) Versus Respcndents 1. Ram Lal, aged about 3O years, son of Shri Defendants Daduram Satnami, 2. Shiv Kumar Son of Daduram Satnami, aged about 28 years, 3. Sahodara Bai, widow of Late Daduram Satnami, aged about 5O years, All R/o Ambikapur Road, Patthalgaon, rDistt. Jashpur (CG) v Siate of Chhattlsgarh through the Coltector Jashpur (CG) (Formal party) Sinqle Bench : 'Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J. 16.6 2010' Shn AN Bhakta counsel for the petrtroner/plamtlff Shh Arun Sao Govt Advocate for the State This writ petmon rs drrected against the order dated 13‘“ Apnt 2010 passed m Mlsc. Crvrt Suit No.2/09, whereby learned Clvrl Judge, Class-ll, Patthalgaon, has allowed the application of the respondents-judgment debtor under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently, set aside the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the civil suit instituted by the petitioner, the respondents/defendants caused their appearance through their counsel and participated in the proceedings. However, on account of their advocate pleading no instructions on 18.3.2008, the defendants were proceeded ex—parte and thereafter, ex—parte decree was passed on 29.3.2008. However, the respondents moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application and the trial Court without conducting any enquiry in the matter only after hearing counsel for the respective partles has set aside the ex-paite decree which is on the face of It illegal and erroneous Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Petitioner Plaintiff Learned Civi! Judge considering the fact that the defendants were proceeded ex—parte as their counsel pieaded no instructions and couneei for the defendants did not inform his clients that he is not appearing in the proceedings on their behalf and observing that the parties Cannot be penalized for any act of omission or commission on the part of their advocates, has allowed the application for condonation of delay and also set aside the ex’ parte decree. In these circumstances, l am of the opinion that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law to further the interest of justice. The matter is to be ultimately decided on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. There is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below, warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. Accordingly, the instant petition being without substance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sdl— ? Dhirendra Mishra H l Judge