||sn^r^i
fei1R;3n^T
ai^ich •^CT|sn^t^arar^rfl^|chTilf'?Pli-^ *ll+l?ff'^fec^ <r<i|'t-$i<
^aiPtPT311^1|
|---|---|---|---|
|€||SB: H«m'bteShriManindra 1
oi-o+abio^^
Ms. Sharmila Singhai,counse)
ShriA. N. Bhakta, counsel1br|
No.2.
ShriSanjeev KumarAgrawal,
Heard.
Though the case was Ist^
respondent No.1 hasenteredappeai|
Takhg intoconsiderationtheit
consentofleamed counseltorthe p^
finally..
Petittoner haschallen^d the |
Civil Judge Class-11, Pathal^on,
whweby petitioner's appBcation unc]
execution praceedingshas been reje|
t
i
Case of the petitiona' is the|
against the petitiqna- and in favout-
Class-11, PaUialgaon in Ovit Suit No[
dated29-03-2008(AnnexureP-2). Wf
passing of the ex parte decree, ai|i
C.R.C. for s^ting askle ex parte jt
However, as respondent No.l-dec^
decree by movingexecution appljoat|
Submisston of leamed couns
that as applteatton under Order 9
^
Court below has rejected the applfct|Shrivastava.J.
forthep^ittoner.
respondent No.1.
nel LawyerfbrtheState/respondent
d for consideration
on admi^ion,
ancesuomotu
iatureofoontroyersyinvolved, withttie
irties, this petiUbn is being disposed of
^rder dated 12-03-2010 passed bythe
Pstrict Jashpur in
M.J.C.hto.2/2009
er Sectton 151 of C.P.C. ftff staying
sted.
t ex parte dscree has been passed
of respondent No.1 t^ Civil Judge
50-AC005 wde judgnnentand decree
henthepetitfoneroametoknowabout
apptjcatton under Order 9 Rute 13
x^ment and decree has been filed.
ee hdder Insirted fbr execution of
on bdorethe ExecutlngCourt.
l for the petittoner is that the leamed
rtion pertunctorily wtthout consktering
Rute 13 C.P.C. was f^nding, the
[^t®'!fe'!|
