EJMR* C f-l-crz> IN THEHIGILCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION (Cl N0. | ^ /2006J- PETITIONER ^~^v -.'y^ "y. i.'j^y'\^Y' ^^-A^ ^M^ sey ^' ^ Smt. LUawati Gupta, W/o Basant Prasad Gupta, Aged about 50 years, Through Special Power ofAttorney Holder Shri Basant F*rasad Gupta, Aged about 55 years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o ViIlage-Bhaiyathan, Tah.-Surajpur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of M.P. (Now C.G.), Through Collector, Sarguja at Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) Krishna Dev Singh, S/o Not Known, Aged about 50 years, Police Constable, Police Station-Surajpur, Tahsil-Surajpur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) 2^? WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2SeyBS& OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WMTLOR WRITS, QRDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. XI-HC-78 sn^T^rf^ira; cWTsn^Tspri^; c' +11^MI ShHlch 3^ '^i'Midii, (STflyiis, Iqciiyy ^w.^)..^.-.{.y/y.Z-WT 200 3ii^i tiafi (li<:<i'lsl'i.lir) ^aTWtrf^rsn^T 29.1.2007 Shri Manindra Shrivastavcl, Advocate for> the petitioner. Heard. This petition is directed a; by learneci 2 Additiona! District of the petitioner filed under' Ord^t CPC for r'estoration of Civii Suit M From the documents annexled 16.6.2006 Civil Suit No.2A/Q5 wa4 plaintiff and on that date a prcye^ foc adjournment, The said proyei^ opportunity of adducing evid4nce Consequently, the suit was dismis^ and accordingly, a decree was drc^un. an oppeal against tha above ord4r ftule 9 read with Order 17 Rule which was rajected by the impugnj o suit is dismissed under Order Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for restoitation remedy availoble to the piaintiff i| High Court. '=hi<<T<'i<fl-i t<it«-iTfftei^<.Ri<-iii< ^srf^iTsn^r , Sr. Advocote with Shri Afroz Khan, [cinst the ordar dated 6.9.20Q6 possed p'udge, Sor9uja whereby the application \r 9 Rule 9 read with Order l7Rule 2 of ^.2A/05 has been rejected. |ed with this petition it appears thot on fixed for recording of evidence of the wios made by the attorney of piointiff wos rejected by the court below and by the plaintiff was closed. |ed under Order 17 Rule 3(b) of the CPC i. The petitioner instead of pre-ferring moved cm application under Order- 9 12 of CPC for restoration of civit suit, sd ordep with an observation that whe.re |l7 Rule 3(b) of (TC, the provisions of of suit are not attracted and the to fiie a regular civii oppecl before the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^rqirR-fi<*i gsiT^ll^lsb*li»h r^' '3:3[ rt|i<qici<<, ®Tny'l6,Rldiwy +11+1MI S»lH|ch ^[ 200 Sll^l ^ach (yI^'sl<^tT) s^ciTWtrfNsn^T Learned Sr. Advocate for 1 suit is dismissed under Order 17 9 Rule 9 are attr'acted, as ths Since the suit wss not dismissedl ought to have exercised the juri; pestored the suit. I hova heard iearned couhs^ I have perused ths order dismissed under Order 17 Rule whereby the application for Considering the reasons ass^ the application filed under Order CPC, which is on the basis of corr^ circumstances of the case, no cas| Court under Article 227 of the devoid of substance liable to be dij |'he petitioner submits that even if the R|jle 3(b) of CPC, the provisions of Order s^ope of Oder 9 Rule 9 is exhaustive. on merit, therefore, the court below sdiction under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and restorlation »bi<<Fti<fl-itiit(CTTtff3I^'<Ri«i< ^srt^iTsn^T for the petitioner. dated 16.6.2006 viele which suit was P(b) of CPC snd the impiyned order of suit hss been dismissed. |igned by the court below for dismissin9 19 Rule 9 read with Order 17 Rule 2 of [ct appreciation of Idw applicabie in the ^ is made out for interfer-ence by this C^nstitution of India. The petition be'mg |missed and it is hereby dismissed._^___ Sd/- ^irendra^ra judge P.T.O.