•\w HiQH COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BiLASPuR Wnt Petition i'Art.227s No.791 of 2011 PegtjORer Baidau Puri, Son of Shri Gaio Fun Dsfendant No.2 Goswami, Aged 73 years, R/o. Viliage Potiadih, Tahsil and Disfrid Dhamfari •^,:^.). Versus ResoorsdeRts 1. Hom Puri son of late Gaiopuri Goswami, Plasntiff aged 78 ysars, R/'o Vsllags Potiadih, T-ahsii and Disirict DhasKtarl <C.G;). 2. Rakesh Guota Son of Shri ish'A'sr! Prasad Gupta, aged 45 yeare, R/o. Banlyapara Vv'ard, Dhamtarl, Dist"ct Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. Siate of Chhatiisgarh, Through: The Coilector, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari irf- G\ v*—'1-'-/ (Writ PetitioR urider Articis 227 of ihe Constituticn of indla) Mr.R.S.Patei, counsel for the petltjoner. Mr.D.N.Prajapati, counsst for respondent No.1. None present for respondent No-2- Mr.Sanjsev Kumar Agrawal, Pane! Lawysr for rsspondeni No.S/State. {SB: Hon'bie W,r. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (Passed on 18-7-2011) 1. By thls petitton under Artacle 227 of ths ConstitutloR of inaia the petittonsr has chaiienged ths iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 13.1 .2011 passed by ths Addiiionai Disirsct Judgo (F.T.C.), Dhamta." in Civil Suit No.32-A/10, whereby tha Court below has refused to set asfds ihs ex-parte proceeding passed againsi the peSitioner under Order 9 Ruie 7 of the Code of Civii Procedure. 2. ! have heard iearnea counsei for the parties, perused tho order impugnedand other documents fi!ed on behaif of the petiSsoner. 3. Learrsed counsei for the peSrtioner subrsiits that notjce was not served upo", the petstioner and v/hen pendsrscy ofsuitwas came into knowledge ofths petjtionsr, then hs has fiied appHcation bsfore ihe Court beiow for setting aside ex-part® procsedlng. After recording the evidence a".d providing opportLsnify of hsariri| ihe Court beiow has dismissed the appiicatton vida order impugned-and thereby comrriitted iiiegalsty warranting corrsction in exerclse ofsuper.'isoryjurisdlctlon. -^- 4. On the other harid, iesrned counsei for rssporident No.1 opposes ths petition and submits that whiie dlsmissiRg the appiication the Court bslow has not committed any iiiegality. Ths petitioner was negilgent and even after havlng knov.'ledge of pendency of suit hs faiied to appear before the Court bsiow. 5. Learnsd counses for respondent No.A'State formaSly opposes the petition. 6. WhiSe dlsmissing the appiication fi!ed under Ordsr 9 Rute 7 of ihs Code of CivH Procedure, the Court bsiow has arrived at a finding that causs of absence shows on fcehaif of the petitlonsr does not appesr to be bonafids and ors ihs aforesaid ground the Court beiow has declined to set asids the ex-parte proceeding and fixed the case foi- defendant's evidence. virtuaiSy in the abssr.ee of any piesdings, no evidence of the defsndanfc'peiitioner would be iegaiiy posslDie. 7. Whiie dectding the appiication unoer Order 9 Ru!e 7 of the Code of Civii Procedure, the Court v/as rsquired to take iiberai approach and the parties are required io sssign goocs cause for his previous non-appearance. Pteadings and svldencs show that ihe presant petltioner has shown good cause for his non- appearance. 8. Consequentiy, the writ petltion is aiiov/ed. Order impugned rslating to dismissai of the appiication filed on behaif of the pefitionsr fo;' ssSting aside ex-psrts proceeding Is hereby quashed. The petiiioner shall fiie his wrstten staternent •A'lthln 15 days from ioday. The Court beiow shaii proceed fcr triai in accordance v/ith iav,'. No order as to costs. t/VOiA». Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^'