S c v'ii 'i tlti' &s) e? ii£t^ ^a ^^ !"^>.' 1 'nhsis'isn 'wssswf. IN 3HE HIGH CCURT O.E' JUDICATORE AT BILASpUR (C.G.). F.A.NO.^37 /O5-' E>L AIN I'l 'FF/AP PELLH-IT. ... R&J3SH DHARIS^L SOQ of ••'" Inderchand Dhariwal, Oi'aer of M/s. Raipur T'ar products Industrial area, Raipar, Address-45/4, Sadar Bazar,Rsiour Tahsil and District Raipur(c.G.) /•;.^' ^y V^ERSUSo D 3F3MDAH 1/RES PGKTD B::! T .^-LLOYD BIII-IEl'J PRm'dCTS No.2Kalkaji Industrj.al ars pos-fc Box Ho.2, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19. XI-HC-22 35? "MI'ilK'1'4, S'TTl'y'16, RlCll^y WHWI VhHICh 3ii^i 4a<t) 4—^:..A:.AP...-5.?.'!?^ 200 S' R<1«A an^r^r R-ii+sn^r sblitiHfScT ail^l ^(iiWBfScl' 02/02/2007 Shri G.D. Vaswani. counsel forl Heard. Leamed counsel for the appeplar appeal may be finally disposed ofat th( facts and circumstances ofthe case. Brief facts are that fhe appel) B/2004 for recovery ofmoney against| reveais that on 28.04.2005 upon recejipt defendant (vvhich document is not on proceeded exparte agailist the dsfen4 2.5.2005 for recording sxparte evi<| appeUanlplaintiff sought adjourmTiem 3.8.2005. On 3.8.2005, the applicatf counsel for the plamtiff under order therein fhat the plaintiff who had, du^ retumed and another date mav be gh.|i However, the leamed Fifth Additicjnal justifying reason, came to fhs conclu^ rejected the appiication under Order 1| the plaintiff. Instead ofpronouncing tf ths case for arffliments on 5.8.2005 w] absence of any svidence. On 5.8.2003 Raipiar wrote ia fhe order-sheet that arj judgment even on fhat date and adjoun)ied ofjudsment. FinaUy on 8.8.2005, the the plamtifFs suit was dismissed. <t)i<itci<fl-< HiH<iTifteIA'<Ri<^i< ^;3Tf^IT3TI^r the appetlant. llant Shri G.D. Vaswani, prays that fhis ; stage ofadmission in vievif ofthe peculiar ant/plaintiff instituted a Civil Sait No.4- the respondsnt/defendant. The ordsr-sheet of ackaowledsement of notice bv the record sent by the lower Court), the Court .ant and thereafter 'adjoumsd the case to lence of the plamtiff. Thereafier, the s on 2.05.2005, 17.6.2005, 14.7.2005 aad [on fiied bv Shri Suiesh Venna, leamed 17 Ru!e 1 C.P.C. for adjourament statm^ to a family work, gone to Indore had not en for recording evidence of the plamtiff. District Judge, Raipur without any ion fhat the prayer was not bona fide. It 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and closed the case of te judament on the same date, it adjoumed kereas no arsuments were necessan- in the I, the leamed 5 Additional District Judge, fcuments were heard but did not pronouncs the case to 8.8.2005 for pronouncement mpugned judgment was deuvered vvhereby^ tsBa XI-HC-22 3'S? '<4NIC1<1, aTfly'16, Rx'll'My HTfICd ShtlT^l 3i[^[ 451<h ^^A,.^.s..32.^ ¥R; 200 ^ fa<i«d 3I1^T?iT R-ficbsn^T ?h^ yi^cl sKW is.vr 311^1 ^WIWfffStT I- I am ofthe considered opinio^ Additional District Judge, Raipur rejectmg the application under Orde^ aothing to show that the absence of| Urdess there were reasons to satisfv tt avoiding to remain present and to wouid, ia no cass wish to do, the le^ ought not to have refused the pray4 adjoumment to the piamtiffs counsel next date, the Court shall proceed to J: the impugnedjudgtiient and decree is i| 'Sbn G.D. Vaswani, leamed submitted that the leamed lower Courj defendant before proceeding with fhe In the facts and ctrcumstance^ The impuaied judsment passed in leamed Fifth Additional District Judg^ the defendant and thereafier dispose olf of Civil Suit be retumed to the lower Q C.C. as per niles. dbe adlduce ay4r chl'MF<-1<fl-l H11<lTffte^<(:»]«K ^^rf^iTsn^T that the impug&ed judgment passed by 5 ;s not shovv any justifiable reason for 17 Rule 1 of C.P.C. because there was [plaiatiff was deliberate or not bona fide. :]ie Court that ths plamtiff was deliberately exparte evidence, which the piauitifF ]med 5 Additional Disteict Judgs, Raipur It should have sranted a conditional |hat upon faiiure to adduce evidence on the ^ronounce judgiiient. Haviae aot doiie so, iable to be set asid^. :ounsel IOT appeUant'plaintiff veiy fairly may also be directed to issue noiice to fee sluit. mentioaed above, tiiis appeal is aliowed. Qivfl Suit T\~o. 4-B/2004 is set aside. The j, Raipur is directed to issue fresh notice to Civfl Suit in accordance wifh law. Record 1ourt. There shali be no order as to costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Jadge 1