Dismissed

Ramdhan v. Sagunram

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2016WP227/24/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Chhattisgarh, allowed the writ petition. It directed the petitioners to file a fresh application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the lower court. The lower court was directed to hear the matter afresh after reply, and the impugned order was not to obstruct this.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file fresh applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act. Lower court to hear matter afresh. Impugned order shall not come in the way.

Ramdhan Vs Sagunram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.24 of 2016

¶4

1. Ramdhan S/o Hriday Rajwar, Aged About 40 Years Caste Rajwar, (Defendant No.2)

¶5

2. Nemsay S/o Parsadi, Aged About 40 Years Caste Rajwar,Caste Rajwar,(Defendant No.7)

¶6

3. Baleshwar S/o Late Sonsay, Aged About 48 Years Caste Uraon, (Defendant No.13)

¶7

4. Sukhram S/o Late Sonsay, Aged About 35 Years Caste Uraon, ( Defendant No. 14)

¶8

5. Dular S/o Mothi, Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 15)

¶9

6. Ramul S/o Puran Cand Aged About 40 Years( Defendant No. 18)

¶10

7. Umeshwar Prasad S/o Dakhal Say Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 22)

¶11

8. Basant S/o Mongra, Aged About 35 Years ( Defendant No. 25)

¶12

9. Nandlal, S/o Late Sonsay, Aged About 45 Years Caste Uraon, ( Defendant No. 26)

¶13

10. Rajnath S/o Noharsay, Aged About 40 Years Caste Kanwar, ( Defendant No. 37)

¶14

All the petitioenrs are R/o. Village Jhirmiti, PS and Post Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Revenue and Civil District Surguja (CG)

¶15

---- Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

1. Sagunram S/o Late Gendiram, Aged About 50 Years ( Plaintiff No. 1)

¶18

2. Kendu Ram, S/o Ghanghra Ram Aged About 45 Years ( Plaintiff No. 2) Both are by Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Jhirmiti, At Present Village Mohanpur, P. S., Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur Revenue And Civil District Surguja (Chhattisgarh).....................

¶19

3. Mahant, S/o Akalu Rajwar, Aged About 45 Years ( Defendant No. 1)

¶20

4. Nanka S/o Gendal, Aged About 45 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 3)

¶21

5. Banshropan, S/o Triveni Soni, Aged About 50 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 4)

¶22

6. Oajan, S/o Mohan, Aged About 30 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 5)

¶23

7. Ramjeet S/o Mohan, Aged About 28 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 6)

¶24

¶25

8. Ghuruwa, S/o Late Parsadi, Aged About 38 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 8)

¶26

9. Kundan, S/o Jeetu Rajwar, Aged About 40 Years ( Defendant No. 9)

¶27

10. Sunil, Aged About 30 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 10)

¶28

11. Jugeshwar, Aged About 52 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 11)

¶29

12. Sabar Say, S/o Sonsay, Aged About 40 Years Caste Uraon, ( Defendant No. 12)

¶30

13. Kanwal Say, S/o Late Mithi, Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 16)

¶31

14. Manjhi S/o Dokra, Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, . ( Defendant No. 17)

¶32

15. Harisay, Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, (Chhattisgarh).......................( Defendant No. 19)

¶33

16. Porte, Aged About 42 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 20)

¶34

17. Karmu, Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 21)

¶35

18. Amirsay, S/o Bodhi, Aged About 37 Years Caste Nai, ( Defendant No. 23)

¶36

19. Dukhi S/o Charku, Aged About 40 Years Caste Nai, ( Defendant No. 24) Respondents 3 to 19 are R/o Village Jhirmiti, Muhalla Charpara, P. S. And Post Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Revenue And Civil District Surguja (Chhattisgarh).......................

¶37

20. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)....................( Defendant No. 27)

¶38

21. Smt. Geeta Rabi, D/o Lalwa Ravi, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jhirmiti, P. S. And Post Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Revenue & Civil District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)......................... ( Defendant No. 28)

¶39

22. Rajesh Agrawal, S/o Chandiram Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years ( Defendant No. 29)

¶40

23. Dinesh Agrawal, S/o Om Prakash Agrawal, Aged About 43 Years ( Defendant No. 30) Respondent No.22 & 23 are R/o Village Lakhanpur, P. S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, Revenue And Civil District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

¶41

24. Nan Ray, S/o Sonsay, Aged About 35 Years Caste Uraon, ( Defendant No. 31)

¶42

25. Chandramani S/o Mahant, Aged About 30 Years Caste Rajwar, ( Defendant No. 32)

¶43

26. Panmeshwar S/o Rainu Chamar, Aged About 45 Years Caste Chamar, ( Defendant No. 33)

¶44

27. Pradeep S/o Dhundhram, Aged About 18 Years Caste Uraon, ( Defendant No. 34)

¶45

¶46

28. Radheshyam S/o Rameshri, Aged About 32 Years Caste Thakur ( Deleted)

¶47

29. Vipin S/o Bhaiyalal, Aged About 25 Years Caste Kanwar, ( Defendant No. 36)

¶48

30. Sukhnandan, S/o Budhansay, Aged About 30 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 38)

¶49

31. Bairagi Babu, Aged About 55 Years Caste Gond, ( Defendant No. 39)

¶50

Respondents 24 to 27 and 29 to 31 are R/o Village Jhirmiti, P. S. And Post Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Revenue And Civil District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

¶51

---- Respondents

¶52

Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners. Shri SC Khakharia, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ respondent No.20.

¶53

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

¶54

Order On Board

¶55

14.01.2016.

¶56

At the out set it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that along with their interim application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') on account of bonafide error, they have not filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, but the Court below has not considered the aspect and dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they may be given opportunity to file again the interim application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to their prayer for condonation of delay if any may be considered and adjudicated as per law.

¶57

2. Perused the record.

¶58

¶59

3 . On perusal of the impugned order 28.11.2015, it is obvious that no any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with the interim application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code. Thereby there is no any appreciation by the Court below and also the petitioners were not in a position to demonstrate the ground to condone the delay if any under the relevant laws, hence, the application simplicitor under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code was dismissed. In the larger interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings may be heard and appreciated along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶60

4 . On due consideration, instant writ petition is hereby disposed of. The petitioners are directed to file a fresh application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code along application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter before the Court below till 16.02.2016. The Court below is directed to hear the matter after reply on those interim applications by the defendants and other contesting plaintiff if any, and dispose of the same afresh. Needless to mention the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 shall not come in the way for the same. Petition disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶61

Sd/(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE

¶62

Bini

Ramdhan v. Sagunram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhan v. Sagunram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulorin Bai And Anr. Vs Dinesh Kumar And Ors.

Somaru and Ors. Vs Sonu and Ors.

Smt. Vibha Verma Vs Sandeep Kumar Awsariya

Narendra Virmani @ Narendra Kumar Virmani Vs Deepak Soni

Shatrughanlal Sinha Vs Bhavdas Ramtake

Smt. Hareshwari Patel Vs Rajesh Patel