1 2025:CGHC:7642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 79 of 2024 • Raipur Development Authority, Through Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ...Applicant versus 1. Mohd. Tohid S/o Amanjada, Aged About 48 Years R/o Modhapara, Near Raza Masjid, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Salik Ram Sharma, Aged About 42 Years R/o Gudhiyari Shivanand Nagar, Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/02/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.02.14 16:52:42 +0530 2 2. There is delay of 95 days in filing the revision. 3. This Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 27.10.2023 passed in MJC No.100/17 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby the application preferred by the respondent/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed and the original Civil Suit No.19-A/2009 was restored and ultimately, the ex-parte decree passed on 05.03.2016 was set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against the impugned order dated 27.10.2023, earlier a Writ Petition under Article 227 was filed on 24.04.2024, however, since an office objection was raised, this Revision was preferred on 03.05.2024. Learned counsel fairly admits that after passing of the impugned order, a copy of the same was applied on 20.11.2023, which was received on 24.11.2023 and thereafter, the Writ Petition itself was filed belatedly. He lastly submits that in this backdrop, the delay may be condoned. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the other side would oppose the aforesaid prayer. He would submit that the Writ Petition itself was filed belatedly and further neither any sufficient explanation has been offered nor any cogent reason has been assigned for the delay occurred in filing of the present Civil Revision. He would further submit that the original Civil Suit has been restored to advance the cause of justice as no proper notice was served, which was taken note of by the trial Court. He lastly submits that the present is not a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revision. 3 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and further considering the reason assigned in the application that the Writ Petition itself was filed belatedly, this Court does not find any satisfactory ground to condone the delay. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka