Page No.1 of 4 IN CR-76-2019 2025:CGHC:40929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 76 of 2019 Motilal S/o Sewakram Satnami Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 6), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus 1 - Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Sukhchain Sonwani. R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Swati D/o Late Bhurwa Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Saroj D/o Late Bhurwa Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deleted (Tijan Bai) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 11/11/2022 And 01/09/2023. 5 - Bhuri Bai D/o Charan, R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Budhwantin Bai D/o Bhakla, Through Mother Gulapa Bai W/o Bhakla, R/o Ghasidas Nagar, Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Gulapa Bai W/o Bhakla R/o Ghasidas Nagar, Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Budhram S/o Sukhit Ram, R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN CR-76-2019 For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 13.08.2025 1. This civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “CPC”) is directed against the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure-A/1), passed by the learned District Judge, Bemetara, by which the appeal preferred by the applicant/judgment-debtor has been dismissed affirming the order dated 04.02.2017, passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 05 of the Limitation Act, has been rejected. 2. In the instant case, the applicant was defendant No.06 in the civil suit. Though he appeared on 30.10.1996, but was proceeded ex- parte on 23.12.1996 and, ultimately, on 16.03.2000 the suit was decreed against him. Against which, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree order. However, on 04.02.2017, the said application of the applicant was rejected holding the same is barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge on 25.03.2017, which also stood dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.06.2019. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present civil revision has been preferred before this Page No.3 of 4 IN CR-76-2019 Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that for considering an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 05 of the Limitation Act, an enquiry ought to have been conducted by recording evidence and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and matter be remitted to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara for fresh consideration of the applicant’s application filed filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 05 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law after recording of evidence of both the parties. As such, the present revision deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the application of the applicant filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 05 of the Limitation Act has been rejected summarily without recording evidence and even without giving proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and, more particularly, whether the applicant was Page No.4 of 4 IN CR-76-2019 duly served with a notice for the suit or not is also not clear, which has caused great prejudice to him and, unless an enquiry is conducted, the aforesaid application of the applicant could not have been decided/rejected summarily by the learned trial Court. Even, the learned appellate Court also failed to consider the same and simply rejected the appeal of the applicant. 7. In that view of the matter, both the orders i.e. dt. 21.06.2019, passed by the learned appellate Court and dt. 04.02.2017, passed by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. The application of the applicant herein filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 05 of the Limitation Act is restored to its original file/number to be decided afresh by the learned trial Court concerned after holding an enquiry on the said applications in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties within 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 28.08.2025 for the said purpose and issuance of fresh notice will not be required. 8. This revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 9. Let a copy of this order alongwith the record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith through a special messenger. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) s@if Judge