/^ ~\ i" S _ 1i t::'. ;% ..fSS3t!, ?1 jj^liBssSi^! vsssf—'a fs HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONBR RE8PONDENTS W.P. (2271 No. 5876/2011 Vijay Agrawal, aged 49 years, S/o Late Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal, R/o Moti Para Dui^ Tah. & Distt. Duig C.G, VERSUS (1) LaUt Kuinar Agrawal, aged 59 years, S/o Late Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal, R/o Arya Nagar, Durg C.G. (2) State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- CoUector Distt. Dui^ C.G. (3) Shrimaa Nazooln Of&cer, Distt. Office Durg C.G. (4) Shnm.aa Tahsildar, Dui^ Distt. Dui^ C.G. (5) Shriman U.S, Agrawal Nayab Tahsitdar, Dui^ P.H.N., Gram Sikola, Tah.sU & Distt. Office Durg C.G. (6) Siut. Kanti, W/o Bh^wan Swaroop, aged 60 years, R/o MIG. 205 M.P. Housing Boaid Tatibandh, Raipur C.G. (7) Sint. Ashok Agrawal, aged 55 Years, W/o Radheshyani Agrawal, R/o LaUt Agrawal, Aiya Nagar, Durg Tah. & Distt. Duig C.G. (8) Smt. Vats]a, W/o Shri Shubrat Ghos, aged 48 years, R/o Neharu Nagar, Bhflai Tah. & Distt. Durg C.G. (9) Late Mahesh Prasad Agrawal, (Dead) S/o Shri Laxininarayan Agrawal, Aged 75 years, Arya Nagar Mohao. Nagar Durg, Tah. & Distt. Durg C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIpnt OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'bIe M».T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P. L. for the State/respsndent No. 2. Respondents No. 1 8s 3 to9 not noticed. ORDBR (Passedon 30/09/2011) 1. By fhis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged the legality and propriely of the order dated 15/7/2011 passed by 7th CivU Judge Class-2 Durg (C.G.) m civil suit No. 31A/09 wheteby appUcation filed on behalf of the -^ petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for settuig aside exparte proceediag has been dismissed. 2. Shri Sonikaiit Veraaa, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2 are heard. 3. Order impugned perused. Wittun 3 inonths froin such order of exparte proceediug petitioner has filed afoiesaid petition, ia these circunistances Court was under obUgation to take Uberal approach and was required to consider on aforesaid ground substantive right of the party should not be suffered. Therefore, interference in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction is just and proper in the present case. Court below has already fixed fhe case. Issuaace of notice to fhe respondents No. 1 & 3 to9 and observance of fhe procedural law would only be futile exercise. Consequenfly, petition is allowed. Order unpugned to fhe extent ofdisinissal ofappUcation under Order 9 Rule 7 of fhe C.P.C. is hereby quashed. Order of exparte proceediag passed against present petitioner is hereby set- aside. No ord.er as to costs. - —- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge