INTHEHON'BLEHICrHCOURTOI'*GHHAT'nSGARHAT BILASPUR ^^0\\ WritPetition(2271No.Q—/2oi» PETITIONERS BefendantNo.1 Defendant No.2 ^' Defendant No.3 ^ \"' 7^^^' ^^'"^••"" ;. ^s* ' • '' ' • • " •:.'• - RESPONDENTS Plaintiff ?<«?c" ^ \.^ DefendantNo. 4 DefendantNo.5 1. Milan Ram Sahu S/o Laharara Sahu, aged about 46 years, caste- Teli, R/o CSEB Colony, Korba, Tahsil Ss District KorbafC.G.). 2. Lakhan Ram Sahu, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Peelaram Sahu, R/o CSEB Colony, Korba. TahsU 85 Disfrict Korba (C.G.). 3. Dileshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Budhraiu Safau, aged about 46 yeai-s, R/o Quarter No. SE-585 CSEB Colony, Earba.TaIisil SEDistnctKorbafC.G.). VERSUS 1. Laxman Rao, aged about 72 years, S/o Narayan Rao Maratha, caste - Maratha, R/o viUage Dadarkhurd, Tahsil86DistrictKorba(C.G.). / 2. Mardenafh, aged about 65 years, S/o Peelaram Marar, R/o ViUage Dadarktiurd, Korba, Tahsil 8s District '. K6rba(C.G.). '"-:- : ^ 3. Rajeridra Yadav &/o Late Kalicharan; . ^ , .Yadav,; • ^R/^'; vSQage , • Dadarkhurd, Korba; ^TaKsil & Bistrict Korba (C.G.). 4.J ';Mayaram Sidyr, aged about 38 years, ; .r':!'S/so^y\. .Maniram," K/o village ; ^^ Da^arkhurd, Korba, 'FahsU 85 District , ..;Korha'(C.G.).: ^" !. ;- . DefendantNo.7 Defendant No.8 5. Indrapal Tariwar, Patwari of Halka, Village Dadarkhurd, Korba, Tahsil 8s District KQrbafC.G.). 6. State of Chhattisgarh,- through District CoUector, Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION imDERARTICLE 2270F THE GONSTITUTION OF INDIA ff' r mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILA8PUR PETITIONERS WritPetition('227)No. 02of2011 Milan Ram Sahu & othere RESPONDENTS Versus Laxman Rao & others Tl ii fWRTT PETmON XJNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr.N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate for the pe'titioners. Shri Vijay Deshmukh, Advocate for respondentNo. 2. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. None for other respondents though served. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 04.04.2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Korba, in Givil Suit No. 40-A/09, whereby the petitioner's/defendant's application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC was dismissed. 2. According to the petitioner, the trial court'proceeded exparte against them on 17.06.2010 on account of their non appearance. Their applications dated 24.07.10 and 12.08.10 filedunder Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside exparte order were dismissed by the trialcdurt holding it as time barred and also on the ground : reasons assigned are not bonafiide. Hence this petition. 3. Shri Baghel, leamed counsel appeariilg for the petitioners would submit petitioners could not appear as they were not informed by their Advocate about the date ofhearing. the same remains un-rebutted, non IW -^'""'^^ 'x /•^•';i'>3^J.':ii!i .iA^i-J'"^' -^ Sahu appearance was bonafide and tiie trial court has erred in dismissing the petitioners application. 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties aad perused the order impugned. 5. In law, no limitation is prescribed tbr preferring application under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC. However, the trial court, withoutconsidering the ground token by the petitioner regarding their non appearance, held reasons assigned is not bonafide. The provisions contained in Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC are not penal in nature. It is trite law that court should be liberal while considering such applications. Other party can be compensated by imposing cost, therefore, order passed by Ifae trial court rejecting the petitioner's application is not in aceordance with law. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this court, ground has been made out for interference ofthis court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the order impugned dated 25.11.2010, being not sustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set aside and ti6e application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPG are allowed, subject to payment pf a sum of Rs. 2000/- as costs payable to the plaintiffs. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits in accordaiice with law. No order asto costs. 7. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. Sd//- N.K.AgrawaI Judge (niit'iiwil