The High Court disposed of a civil revision filed against an order allowing restoration of a civil suit dismissed due to respondent's non-appearance on a date reserved for the applicant's argument, finding no illegality.
The civil revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1
.y y ^PPLICANT DEFENDANT
-<
CIVIL REVISION N0. l&D /2011
Vijay Kumar Tiwari, aged about 52 son of Heeralal, Caste years, Brahman, R/o. Bhoghapara Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G)
VERSUS
FtESPONDENTS I'LAINTIFF
DFD.No.2
Champa (C.G.)
v<br>y tf
CSSfIl. REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF
-€ CIVIL PROCEDURE
^
w^ -C--A
ss^t
<br>/€
HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT Bii-ASPUR
Civi! Revlsion No. 100 of 2011
APPLSCANT Dsfenciani
V«ayKumar Tiwari
Versys
RESPQNDENTS Piaintiff
Virendra Kumar-Tiwari and another
CiViL REViSON UMDER SSCTiON 11S THE CODE OF CIViL PROCEDURE
(SB: Hon'bie KSr. N.K. Asarwai. J.)
Present : Mr. Harsh IVtahant, counsel for the appiicant. Mr. Ssnjeev Agrawa!, PL for the State/respondent No.:
ORDER
(05.39.2011}
The matter vvas flxed for app!lcant's argument on the appiication fl!ed by respondent No. 1 under Section 151 of the Cods on 30.11.2009. The matter was already argued by respondent No.1. On that day, due'to non-appearance of respondent No.1 the suit was dismi^ed. Fifteen days time barred appiication was fited by respondent No. 1 for restoration of civil suit aiong with appiication for condonation of deiay, inter alia on the ground:' on 30.11.2009 respondent No.l's presence was not necessary inasmuch as it was for the applicant to make hp submission and thereafter Court has to pass order and'suit could not have been dismissed on tha{ date for respondenf No.1 s non-appesrance.
'^^T A ^: *»..«-"r .^'°^3@I5t£s:rl
s^^ ^- 5^e
1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is warranted in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the trial court's order allowed restoration of suit.
Whether the dismissal of the suit due to respondent's non-appearance on a date fixed for applicant's argument was legally infirm.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar Tiwari
Virendra Kumar Tiwari
The State of Chhattisgarh
N.K. Agarwai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
