$5NGLE BENc‘ a IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS (DefendantS) RESPONDENTs (plaintiffs) Mrs. Patiya Bai @ Paira Bai Wife of Punau Satnami, aged 63 years, Gopala son of Punau Satnami, aged about 43 years, Gopchand son of Punau Satnami, aged about 41 years, Sukhnandan Son of Punau Satnami, aged about 38 years, All resident of Village Kharhari, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Mrs. Jugari Bai wife of ’I‘ularam Satnami, aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Village Amora, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.), ' Mrs. Bhuri Bai D/o. late Punau Satnami, aged about 35 years, Mrs. Munni Baj wife of Jagmohan D/o. late Punau Satnami, aged 28 years, No.2 85 3 are resident of village Khudmudi (Nawagaon), Tahsil Benietara, District Durg (C.G.), Mrs. Bimla Bai Wife of Ogesh D/o. late Punau Satnami, aged 28 years, R/o. Jeetpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), .\;W’“J w.P. 227 . Hi 2011 1. H 5. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector-Burg, District - Durg (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE W CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1417 of20 11 PETITIONERS : Mrs. Patiya Bai @ Paira Bai & others Versus RESPONDENTS . : Mrs. Jugari Bai&0thers WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Smt. Shabnam Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. s .. .u. —— ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14.03.20] 1) 1. Order dated 09.12.2010, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Bemetara, Distt. Durg, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/10, is under assail in the instant petition med under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts in brief are : on 24.06.10, plaintiE’s suit was dismissed for their non appearances. On 28.06.10 they applied for its restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. Prayer was opposed by the petitioner’s herein on the ground, the grounds taken in the application are not correct. 3. The trial court, holding: on minor technicalities plaintiEs should not be deprived of their rights, allowed the application and restored the suit in its original number. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and having perused the order impugned, I do not 0nd any illegality in the order passed by the court below warranting interference ofthis court under Article 227 of Constitution‘of India. It is trite law that court should be liberal in deciding the application such as application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself nom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ largeon the face of the record, which is not in the present case, The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu