-y HIfiH COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH. BILASPUR APPB.LANT ptaintiff ftESPONDENTS Defendants First Appeal No. 151 of 2005 : Smt. Indu Mishra, W/0-A^odhusudon Mishra. Aged about 40 yeors. R/0 - Proycg l&inj, Koriya R«»d,R^jrcng Chowk, SantodT btegar, Police Station - Tikrapara. Tahsjl A Oist. Ra^ur (C.@.) Versus : 1) Ashok Kumar Verma, Aged about 46 years, S/0-Kriposhankar Verma, Oca^ation- Land broker. ft/0-Sundar Nagar. Rdpur (€.€.),C/o - Matiya wote Maharaj, Rrst ftoor, Mahadev, 6hat Road. Sundar Nagar, Raipur. Police Station - Puroni Basti, Rdpur (C.6.) : 2. Storte of Chhattisgarh, Through- Cottector, Rayur : 3. VJjay Kiuniar Anant, S/0-Sakhram Anant, Presoit address-House no.724. Stuidou* Nago"'* Police Station-Purcni Basti, Ra^pur (C.6.) Office T.S.L Regional Tronsporting E^spflrtment, Shankhk barrter/Jharkhcmd Border, Disn-Jashpur (C.6.) Shri Y.C.^iarma, Counsel for the eypelbnt. Respondent/befendant-Ashok Kumar Verma is absent. though seved. Respondent No.2/State by Shri Akhit Agrawal, R-. Kespondent No.3 is not served. ORAL OftDER (Passed on 13.3.2007) The following oral order of the Court- was passed by Dil4» Raosahcb Desliwukh, J. g. /./. TTie appeltant is aggrieved by an order dated 12.05.2005 pasded by 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur whereby in Civil Suit No.5-A of 2005, on 12.05.2005 i.e. the date of evidence althou9h the plaintiff and her witness Madhusudan Mishra were present, yet on 1+ie ground that the counsel for the plaintiff was absent/ the suit was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. 2, In the above mentioned situation, this oppeal is being di^osed of without notice to re^)ondent No.3 who is a subsequent purdhaser of the suit property from respondent No.l during the pBn<tency of the suit. 3. Heard. 4. The above mentioned Civit Sttit No, 5-A of 2008 was fbwd on 13,04.2005 for disposal of some interlocutory applications, On that day, learned 3rd Additional bistrict Judge, Raipur dtr&cted the pjaintiff to file list of witnesses if not already filed and to pay process fee for summoning her wilnes^s ond fixed the case on 12.05.2005 for evidence. On 12.0S.2005, the ptaintiff filed an typlication under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. and another fipplication under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C, Both these applications were dismissed by the leamed 3 Additjonal District Judge, ftaipur. Even though the plaintiff and her witness Madhusudkin Mishra were present in Coyrt, yet after dismissing the aforesaid interloajtory applications, the learned 3rd Additionai District Judge, Roipur. fixed 1+ie time for recording ^f evtdence at 4,00 p,m. The case was catled at 5.00 p.m. Jhe plaintiff-Smt, Indu Mishraand her witness AAadhusudan Mishra were a9ain present The leamed lower Court proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3 C,P.C. on the ground that Shri Bawaria, learned counsel for the plaintjff, 1+iou9h oware that the suit was to be taken up ot 4^00 p.m. for recording of evidence, was absent ;lil .^ o ^^^^SS'^^i^^Si^ ^ii^SiiiyiSiiM §. I have pen.jM^ ihe <'«^ counset forlheplaintiff^^ ::'^;':l;'l-:'''j'1'^^ was writl^ ON t2^^(X)i whe^ f?fatmtiff and her wi1^^,^flal|ivsy^ l&istecrio^proc^^^roG^ <^the l1wnu^^ p.m. Mowev®r,tlw^^^ at5.QO|^. Itwasjri^^^p^ begm to r®^N'the ^tden<»o^theptontiff^^C^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <fay even afr 5^ ^.m, ^^ plaintiff ariid het^ wi^^ ^aclhuisudfla'i Mi^ra wero presen^. thus^^^^'^^ part" of ^ ptaintif^ Or<terl71^3ofj^^^^ the plainl^ ahdh^^ Cw^ ou^ 1w ^ne^^^^^f^^ rewrd^t^ hepeviiitenafc ordepis |»ryerse^an|di^i^l®t&l»s^ :..::;l; .-;-.i': ;''.'1:.^1^ 6. The Gppeol ihsjatlowed.^ ^ set asiele. The te<ipne<l fcwer ^url- is directed ^ p^^ from 'rtle sfogs of ej^enea ht ®sTOrAm<»N^ tow»<if^p i^^ notice totheparti^ No ordftrast&aMFte. Sd/- iDatpBaosahebDeshmukh ^^