1 2025:CGHC:5016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 15 of 2024 • Salim Khan S/o Chamra Khan Aged About 56 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Village Pali, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). (Plaintiff) ... Applicant. versus 1 - Jhalaram Awdheliya S/o Tetkuram Awdheliya Aged About 45 Years P.S. Kharora, R/o Village Devar Tilda, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Kaushalyabai Awdheliya W/o Tetkuram Awdheliya Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Hardi Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa. ... Respondent/Defendants. Appearance: For Applicant : Shri Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri NK Chatterjee, Advocate. For State Shri Dilman Rati Minz, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.29 17:29:46 +0530 2 28/01/2025 1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Akaltara Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Civil Suit Unregistered/22 (Jhalaram Avdhelia vs. Salim Khan and two others) whereby, application preferred by Non-Applicant No.1/Defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of Limitation Act was allowed and ex-parte decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.22A/2018 was set aside and the case was restored to its original number. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that applicant has filed a civil suit on 27.03.2018 for specific performance of agreement to sell. Defendant No.1/Non-Applicant No.1 after service of summons remained ex-parte, following which, an ex-parte decree was passed. Thereafter, to set aside the same, Non-Applicant No.1 preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act by making averment inter alia that no service has been effected and in a fraudulent manner, service report has been filed before the Court. When the impugned judgment and decree came to the knowledge of Non-Applicant No.1 for the first time on 16.11.2022, he moved the application in question which has been allowed by the order impugned. Hence this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that village Kotwar who served the summons upon Defendant No.1/Non-Applicant No.1 has not been examined and the learned court below while allowing the application in question has not assigned cogent reasons, which is not proper, therefore learned counsel prays to allow the revision. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Non-Applicant No.1 would submit 3 that Non-Applicant No.1 is an illiterate person, however in endorsement of the summons annexed herein, his signature has been obtained. He would further submit that the Process Server returned the summons with an endorsement that the Non-Applicant No.1/Defendant is not residing at Village Hardi, tehsil Akaltara and has shifted to village Devertilda, District Raipur. Thereafter, a Humdast service has been obtained from the Court and service has allegedly been effected at village Hardi. He also submits that Non-Applicant No.1 is an illiterate person, however, his signature has been shown in the endorsement of the summons. The trial Court has rightly allowed the application, to advance the cause of justice. Instant revision being bereft of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the revision. 6. Admittedly, perusal of the record of trial Court goes to show that when the regular service has been issued, Anil Samundre, Process server vide endorsement dated 03.05.18 categorically reported that Non-Applicant No.1/defendant has shifted to another village. Thereafter, plaintiff had obtained Humdast service and the same was effected through the village kotwar, however, complete address of the persons in whose presence the said service has been effected is not mentioned. Further, the agreement on which the suit has been filed, wherein Defendant No.1 has signed by way of thumb impression but in the summons’ endorsement, his signature has been shown. When the Non-Applicant No.1 came to know about an ex- parte decree having been passed, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 7. In view of the backdrop, the trial Court found it appropriate to advance the 4 cause of justice by restoring the suit to decide the lis on merit. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, sufÏcient cause has properly been shown and established by Defendant No.1 and the trial Court has rightly allowed the application in question. 9. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order impugned which would warrant interference invoking revisional jurisdiction. 10. In the result, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash