HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MJSHRA. J Writ Petition (227) No. 2889 of 2010 Petitiotiers 1. (Applicant) Defendant 2. 3. 4. 5. Ram Kumar, aged 49 years, S/o Late Gopai Prasad yiswakarma. Ram Charan, aged 41 years, S/o Late Gopal Prasad Viswakarma, Gouri Shanker, aged 36 years, S/o Late Gopal Prasad Viswakarma Girja Shanker, aged 34 years, S/o Late Gopai Prasad Viswakarma All by Caste - Viswakarma, Lohar, R/o Village SirgitSi, Tehsil & District Biiaspur (CG) Smt. Droupati Bai, aged 51 years. W/o Tijau Ram Viswakarma, R/o Dipupara, Near Pond, Biiaspur, Tehsii & Distt. Biiaspur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. Bodh Ram S/o Jiba Lal, Caste - Lohar. 2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Jiva LaJ, Caste - Lohar. Both R/o Vi!tage Sirgitti, Tehsil and Distt. Biiaspur (CG) Present: Shri K.N. Nande, counsei forthe petitioners. ORAL (24th June, 2010) The petitioners moved an appiication under Order 9 Rule 13 ofthe CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree (Annexure P/1) passed in favour of the respondents, aiong wlth an appiicatiQn for condonation of deiay vide Annexure P/2. Learned Cjvil Judge rejected the appilcation vide Annexure P/3 and misceilaneous appeai has been further dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bijaspur vlde Annexure P/4, against which the, Instant petitjon has been filed. Shri K.N. Nande, iearned counsei for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below have committed a grave error In exercising their respective jurisdictions by rejecting the valjd expianation offered by the petitioners for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex-parte decree, and the sarne has resuited in rTianifest injustice to the petitioners. — pj^r' /^ 11 j^ :fcc^y '^ Heard learned counsej for the petitioners. From perusal of the impugned order, jt is evident that learned Civil Judge afforded opportunity of adducing orai evidence to the parties and thereafter, dismissed the application fpr condonation of deiay. The order of the Civii Judge has been further confirmed by the learned District Judge with the observations that the witness examined by the petitioners has admitted that the ex-parte decree was passed on account of his own negiigence and there is admission of the petitioners that delay in filing of application was deliberate. Even the counsei engaged by the petitioners has stated on oath that they had addressed several ietters to his client intimating that their presence is required for prosecuting the suit and the same was received by them, desplte that they did not contact him. Shri Nande, learned counsel for the petitjoners, does not dispute the abovefacts. in view of above, 1 am of the opinion that there is no iiiegaijty, infirmity or jurisdictiona) error committed by both the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is without any substance, the same deser^es to be and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^