•x^yy^".^-^. aiNRIl ItKS1" iHISu.2- '"""•"' CD "'VciS' c^\y)- [IGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.fCt N0. 3007 Q-H'Q] PETITIONER :- / Dhani Ram Patel S/o late Purandar lal, (Defendant) 'K aged 57 years, Occupation Service, Posted as Asst. Professor Govt. College,^w €^-.. <^^"' ^>~ f 'S'..^, /' §mdagriculture R/o Village Baramkela fc^-1^^./ <r^'^s^--"' Tehsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G), ,^y/< / presently R/o Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENTS:- 1. Gorakh Nath S/o Kanthiram caste R:l (Plaintiff) ^ Aghariya, aged 49 Years, R/o Village Bendrapali, Post - Lendhra^ Tahsil BsMedsria? Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) y' '^,<^^-'-' , d^ Bs^aedsria? ^/^1^1^ _/^"^^ _ _ , -. 9$»°^'\V-^.^v'~ 2; state of C'G' through/collector Raigarh, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) ^ WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRrr PETmON (Cl No. 2401of 2007 PETmONER iDefendanti RESPONDENTS fPialnUfls) Dhani Ram Patel Versys Gorakh Nath and another. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CCWStJtUfKWOFINiGUA (Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri N.K..AaaiBiffllli J.) Present : ShriS.N. Nande.counselforthepetitioner. Shri Prafull N. Bharat, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawat, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 04th day ofJanuary, 2011) Heard. 2 The instant petition is directed against the order dated 02-12-2000 passed by Civfl Judge, Class-l, Raigarh sitting at Sarangarh in Civil Suit N0.40-A/1996 whereby and whereunder the Trial Court vkie impugned order rejected the application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Prcwedure, 1908 (for short the CPC) flled by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/defendant did not appear in the Court on 14-10-2000, 20-11-2000,30-11-2000 and also on 02-12-2000 i.e. atated flxed by the Court after filing of apptication by the petitioner under Orcter 9 Rule7of CPCand thus, failed to demonstrate bona-fide reasons for his absence. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attentlon of this Court on Annexure P-3 which contains We order-she^ of the Triat Court dated 1 4-10-2000,20-11 -2000 and ateo 30-11- 2000. The above order-sheets would show that the petttioner in fact appeared on those dates inthe Court. This cteariy reveate that the factual finding recorded by the Trfal Court whMe ^'&.-...^ ,<S!' i^! Kvr rejecting the petttioner's applteatlon for setting aside the ex- parte order is not correct. It appears that the Trial Court has faited to consider its own order-sheets properly. 3. In vjew of above, the order impugned suffers from material lllegality. It is also trite law that the applications like under Order 9 Rute 7 of CPC are required to be considered liberally. 4. For the for^oing, the petitioner's petition succeeds. The order impugned deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The applieation preferred by the petttioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is allowed. The teamed Trial Court shall permtt the petitioner/defenctant todefend his case from the stage when he was proceeded ex-parte before the Trial Court. Since the matter is an otd one, it is expected that the trial Court sha8 decide the case expeditiously. No order asto c<®ts. Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge 7'