6 KC SPM^ '""'" SJCf%.W 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w,P. (227) N0. ^trl1 /2011 PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF zy ^ '.-•Q^'. ^qy )';.Y ^J--' 'y .»' ^y/.--" ' ^,^-"" RESPONDENTS DEFENDATNS ^. Kumari Sharma, Wd/oMannu Lal Sharma, aged about 60 years, Caste- Bramhan, R/o Village Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) at present resident of Darogapara, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) through her power of attorney holder Brajkishore Pandey S/o Shri Moti Lal Pandey aged about 59 years, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS I. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Shivkumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, R/o Behind Ajit Hotel Telipara, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) '2. Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, aged about 44 years, R/o Sadar Bazar Bilaspur (Baloda Wale) Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . The petitioner named above, most humbly and respectfully begs t6 submit as under:- ?-u5S^S?i?.^^t^^SS^^^SSEE^^f^^^^^S^I^S^^^'f^vaw^^K^Q^^^ IF jy"- _ '%, fffc^pl. 1 '•v6a>' i / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 254 OF 2011 PETITiONER FF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Kumari Sharma Versus Dinesh Kumar Gupta and another. WRIT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.i Present : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17m day of January, 2011) Heard. 2. The instant petition Is directed against the order dated 08-04-2010 passed by Third Civil Judge, Class-ll, Bilaspaur in civil MJC No.3/2007 whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') was dismissed on account of non-payment of process fee. 3. Learned counsel app'earing for the petitioner submits that earlier on several occasions, the petitioner had paid the process fee for summoning the respondents but the summons were retumed un-served and due to inadvertence, the petitioner could not pay the process fee on the earlier date and the learned Trial Court ought to have afforded an opportuntty to the petitioner for payment of process fee; 4. Having heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity for payment of process fee to the petitioner, as eariier also the petitioQer had paid the process fee for 2 to 3 times and rejection 3^ ••»i;' Kw of application on the above ground is not proper, therefore, the order impugned being not sustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The petition is allowed and the civil MJC No.03/2007 is restored to its original number. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 07-02-2011 along with the process fee, as per rules falling which the instant petition shatl stand dismissed. — Sd//- . " N.K.AgrawaI Judge ^^^^^^^ -I