HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. CiviJ Revision. iSio. 16 of 2008 AppSicants : 1. Radheshyam son of late Dhan Sai, aged about 55 years, 2. Saghu son of late Pelka aged about 50 years, 3. Sahii son of fate Dheiba aged about 50 years, 4. Risa son of Chhotan, aged about 60 years, Ail are agriculturist, R/o Vill. Jamhor, Post Durgapur, Police Station Shankar Nagar Tahsil - Kusmi, District - Surguja (CG) Versus Non-appSicants : 1. Smt Buchu bai, D/o Mangaru Ram, D/o Shri Likhan Kanwar, aged 72 years, occupation - house wife, R/o Jamhor, Post Durgapur P.S. Shankargarh, Tah. Kusmi, Dist. Sarguja (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the CoSlector, Sarguja (CG) CiviS revision ynder Section 115 of the Civii Procedure Code, Present: Shri S.K. Guha, counsei for the appeliant. Shri Akhil Agrawai, PL for State. QRAL_QRDER (Passed on 23.01.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appeiiant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the j!nd Addltionai District Judge, Ambikapur in misc. civil appeai No.15/2007, whereby the iower Appeliate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Judge whereby the application under Order-9 Rule 13 of CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and has ordered restoration ofcivil suit No.61-A/2005. .^ Y (3) In this appeai, the soie ground urged by the learned counse! for the applicants is that the lower Appellate Court ought to have considered that the trial Judge was right in holding that the defendant No.1 had faited to show sufficient cause for absence on a day to day basis. (4) Having consldered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, ! have perused Ihe impugned order. i am of the considered opinion that the lov^/er Appellate Court has, on taking a pragmatic and liberai view and aiso on proper appreciation of materiai on record, condoned the deiay and set aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant No.1. No such iliegatity or manifest error of law as wou!d warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdictlon is seen in the impugned order. (5) in thss view of the matter, this civii revision, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, at the stage of admission. (6) Accordingiy, E.A. No.1 for grant of stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya