-'3. c IN THE HI6H COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f/lrt.227) N0. f l{ [C, OF 2010 PETITIONERS : (Judgment- debtor) z^, ^w ' <%^ ^wy ^y 31' ;" ^^ / ^// 1. Ramlal, son of Daduram Satnami, • aged about 33 years. /- 2. Shivkumar, son of Daduram Satnami, aged about 31 years. 3. Sahodara Bai, wife of Daduram Satnami, aged about 53 years. All resident of Ambikapur' Road, Pathalgaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, C)istrict Jdshpur (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS becree holder 1. Laxmi Bai, widow of Matulal *. Satnami, aged about 66 years, Occupation House work, resident of Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, tiistrict Jashpur (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Jashpur. ' PETITIONl./N&ER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONi OF IN&IA np TMF Defendant No.4 sn^r^i fei1R;3n^T ai^ich •^CT € 75ET -M|<41d^, ^Tfl+l'lti, r««ni'M:l< '^-()Y%^V^~^'(STL0'0 <1i*<CTI g^jq;—-'—'"1"—'^————"'^^! 200 sn^t ^arar ^rfl^ chTilf'?Pli-^ *ll+l?ff'^fec^ <r<i|'t-$i< ^aiPtPT 311^1 Shrivastava. J. SB: H«m'bteShri Manindra 1 oi-o+abio ^^ Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counse) for the p^ittoner. ShriA. N. Bhakta, counsel1br|respondent No.1. No.2. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Heard. nel Lawyer fbr the State/respondent Though the case was Ist^d for consideration on admi^ion, respondent No.1 has entered appeai|ance suo motu Takhg into consideration the itiature ofoontroyersy involved, with ttie consent of leamed counsel tor the p^irties, this petiUbn is being disposed of finally.. Petittoner has challen^d the | Civil Judge Class-11, Pathal^on, whweby petitioner's appBcation unc] execution praceedings has been reje| ^rder dated 12-03-2010 passed by the Pstrict Jashpur in M.J.C.hto.2/2009 ter Sectton 151 of C.P.C. ftff staying isted. Case of the petitiona' is the|t ex parte dscree has been passed against the petitiqna- and in favout- of respondent No.1 t^ Civil Judge Class-11, PaUialgaon in Ovit Suit No[50-AC005 wde judgnnentand decree dated 29-03-2008 (Annexure P-2). Wfhen the petitfoner oame to know about passing of the ex parte decree, ai|i apptjcatton under Order 9 Rute 13 C.R.C. for s^ting askle ex parte jtx^ment and decree has been filed. However, as respondent No.l-dec^ee hdder Insirted fbr execution of decree by moving execution appljoat|on bdore the Executlng Court. Submisston of leamed couns that as applteatton under Order 9 ^l for the petittoner is that the leamed Court below has rejected the applfctrtion pertunctorily wtthout consktering Rute 13 C.P.C. was f^nding, the [^t®'!fe'! ui—i;"wl" ^;-:-.?-^^vsm-^ -HC-22 SII^T^T 'f?:IW3fI^I ?t»^icb tifia ^: 1<, Tumaoe -L 'Svt -tlWWi, S>fll*f<16, IsldKHy VJ.^C2-U^^ TAI ,1\M 1 fcl^ 10 IIHMI 'aTiTra;""""" ""/""""""""TF^ 200 petttioner was justified in praying for applioation for setting askte ex , Per contra, submission of that the petitioner is not entitted to as) below has rightly rejected the ap|| application was not flled. He lurthei| appear in the civil suit though trial Court proeeeded ex parte. In unable to enjoy the fruits of decree for settmg askte ex parte juc^menfl merits. Maving (ansktered the submij parties, in the opmion of this Cour^ leamed Oourt below to expeditiouslf parteflecree. ledrned numtter rts setting aside ex parte judgment anc| and tiU thai, the petitioner shall no( decree passed against him. Accordingly, the petitton is fln(i chl<ii^l'411 +11+inf'^'T^<ztTf3R3R ^T a.rfiw an^r stay of execution till consideratton of counsel fbr respondent No.1 is 1y consideration and the leamed Court ^lication in as much as appropriate submits that whwi petitkiner dld not of opportunities were granted, the submissbn, the respondentNo.1 is tjecause ofthe paidency of applteation and decree which otherwise has no ssion made by leamed counsel for the it vmukl be expedient to dired the decKtethe petitiona''sapplicatim for clecree within two months frorn today be dispossessed in execution of the tly disposed of. •"56 MamndraMohan^^av^ Judge _. [Tit®''feTt ^.'??tw"'t"a-Ji-;-— '^-^i^t.J^ •s.sassi'. ~~:r^ys:sar'