.^ .iSSiF"' HlGHCOiUMTOFigHHATTISGARH AT BlLASF'UR W.P. (227) Nb.3048of 2010 PETITIONER: Plaintiff RESPONDENTS: -Versus- 1. 2. 3. Present: Shri Rakesh Dubey, counset forthe petitioner. Radheshyam Pathak, aged about 82 years, S/o late Sunderlal Pathak, R/o village Ghutku, Tah. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) through Special Power of attorney holder Vijay Prakash Pathak, aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Radheshyam Pathak, R/o Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur (CG) Kanhaiya Gond, aged about 32 years, S/o late Mahesh Gond Nandlal Gond, aged about 28 years, S/o late Mahesh Gond Smt. Beha Bai, aged about 62 years, W/o Late Mahesh Gond, All are R/o Vill- Ghutku, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Ramayandas Single Bench: Hpn'ble Shri Dhirefidra IWishra, J. ORAL ORDER I (29-6-2010) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16-4-2010 passed in Civil Appeal N0.30-A/10 whereby ;the District Judge, Bilaspur has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. L 2. Learned counse] for the petitionersubmitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the fact that there was no valid reason for the respondents for preferring the appeal with inordinate delay of almost 6 months. 3. Having heard learned counsel forthepetitioner, having regard to the fact that delay has been condoned with an observation that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the matter shoutd be decided on merits and the same should not be dismissed pn technical grounds, 1 am of the opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdiction error committed by the Court below in the impugned order warranting interference by this Courtunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. -——_^ 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Bssn/e Sd/. Dhirendra Mishn Judge v