r-€ar'i »»^" "A> IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR \?-7-y. W.P;(r€)NO. <S( / OF 2010 ~ss WRIT PETETION UN&ER ARTECLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INNA Petitioner .<f Ramsundar, S/o Late Gurudayal, .ys-1' aged about 35 years, Caste - O^iW\ Rajwar, R/o Village Katinda, P.S. & ^^%--'"" »-r'1 I'i'. /' \.r ^'^•"'^' Respondents. ^v~-- Tahsil Lakhanpur, bistt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Non-ADDlicant No. 1 Versus 1. Shiv Prasad, S/o Late Chamra, aged about 50 years, Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village Katinda, P.S. <& Tahsil Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Applicant 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Distt. Surguja, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) Non-Applicant No. 2 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETmONER ^' ^ Pet'rtioner Petition 1227) No.681,' 2010 Ramsundar Shiv Prasad and another Miss Sharmila Singhai, coynsei for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, P.L. for the State/ respondent .2. »- "^f' 'Sf~\ Bythe order impugned in this petition, the learned trial Court has lowed plainWffrespondent No. 1 application under Order 9 Rule 9 of e Code of Civi! Procedure to restore the suit to "rts ori.( which dismissed for want of prosecution on 05-05- ilifUiBi Tha respondent No. 1 moved the application for restoration of the suit on 07-05-2009. The tria! Court has obsen?ed that though the petitioner / defenciant has disputed the reasons shown by the plaintiff for his ncn- appearance on account of the ilS health of his grand son by submitting an inquest (panchnama) signed by the villagere, however, the tria! Court has allowed the application to decide the matter on merits in the interestofjust'roe. - 2. Having perused the order and having found that the order of dismissal of the suit in 'defauit was passed on 05-05-2009 and J •application Tor restoration was submitted on 07-05-2009 and that the trial court has exereised the jurisdiction and discretion for allowing the parties to contest ffie suit on merits in the interest of justice. This Court \does not find any palpable or manifest error of jurisdiction which needs IR!B;-«aBaiHW mterference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. 3. The instant writ petition filed under Articte 227 of the CQnstitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge