IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G.) SINGM EW‘ .P. Art. 227 No. 12% 01 w 21 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Sahu; Aged about — 53 years; Occupation — Labour Work; R/ o Village — Bharregaon; Tahsil and District — Jaglal S/o. Mangtu Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ’ : 1 . Rajvantin Bai W/ o S Mahatma Sahu; ed ag about — 57 years; R/o — Patapar; Tahsil nd a District — Rajnangaon d (C.G.) . Jk ivrahan Lal S / o Gangaram Candraar; hk agd about —- 61 years; R/o — Patapar; sil Tah and Distrc it Rajndgn (C.G.) Koba m S/o hrhra Ra DEFENDANT e anao HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR W.P. (227) No. 1275/1 PETITIONER Jaglal Versus RESPONDENTS Rajvantin Bai and others SB: HONBLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J - ’ RESENT :- hri R.N. Jha, Advocate, for the petitioner. u. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ‘ O RA L O RD E R (18-3-2011) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the appellate order (Ex. P—l) dated 13—12—2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 3/2009 affirming the order dated 29—8—2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class l, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 2/2007, dismissing petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. Facts of the case in brief are as under: In a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the defendant also preferred a counter claim. On 25'4—2005, trial court proceeded exparte against the petitioner with regard to counter claim preferred by the defendant due to his non~ appearance. w The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the exparte decree on 28-2-2007 on the ground: he came to know about the exparte decree only on 28-2-2007 when he received information from the Naib VTehsildar. The trial Court holding the application as time barred, filed without filing any application for condonation of delay, dismissed the application. The first appellate court vide impugned 20 1 P S K 2 @ order also affirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel ’for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 4. The suit was filed by the petitioner himself. The petitioner was proceeded exparte on 20-4-2005 due to his non~ appearance. As per petitioner he was ill on that date. If it is so, he could have appeared in the case after getting cured. He did not appear in the case for a period of almost 2 years from the date when he was proceeded exparte. The application‘for setting aside exparte decree was preferred almost after a period of one year. Explanation placed was not at all plausible. No application for condonation of delay was filed. The petitioner also failed to explain the delay caused in filing the application. In such a case, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned both the courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing petitioner’s application warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6. The petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge