1 2025:CGHC:4162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 12 of 2025 • Heerasai Rawat S/o Late Bodhiram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1. Ghasnin Bai W/o Late Omprakash Aged About 35 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Manisha D/o Late Omprakash Aged About 18 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Roshni (Minor) D/o Late Omprakash Aged About 15 Years Through Guardian Mother- Smt. Ghasnin Bai, W/o Late Omprakash, Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Nan Bai W/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 59 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Harish Kumari D/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 31 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Hariprasad S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.01.25 10:58:04 +0530 2 7. Lalita S/o Harihar Singh Aged About 26 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 8. Tarun S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 24 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 9. Lokeshwar S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 20 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 10.Arun Kumar S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 19 Years Caste- Rawat, R/o Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 11.Tahsildar Tahsil- Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 12.State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents CR No. 14 of 2025 • Heerasai Rawat S/o Late Bodhiram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) ---Applicant Versus 1. Ghasnin Bai W/o Late Omprakash, Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 2. Manisha D/o Late Omprakash, Aged About 18 Years R/o- Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 3. Roshni (Minor), aged about 15 years, D/o Late Omprakash Through Guardian Mother Smt. Ghasnin Bai W/o- Late Omprakash R/o- Village Barkonha, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 4. Nan Bai W/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda,, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 3 5. Smt. Harish Kumari D/O Late Harihar Singh Aged Abothem about the legal consequences of the said Civil Suit is not clear.ut 31 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 6. Hariprasad S/o- Late Harihar Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 7. Lalita S/o Harihar Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 8. Tarun S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 9. Lokeshwar S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 10.Arun Kumar S/o Late Harihar Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o- Village Khutakunda, Tahsil- Kartala, District- Korba ( C.G. ) 11.Tahsildar Tahsil- Kartala, District- Kobra ( C.G.) 12.State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Korba, District- Korba ( C.G. ) --- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 23.01.2025 1. Since both the Revisions arise out of the common impugned order, they are being decided by this common order. 2. These Revisions have been filed concerning the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2017 by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Kartala to Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, in which, an ex-parte judgment and decree has been passed and the cross suit has been allowed. As 4 respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs have been proceeded ex-parte, their Suit was also dismissed. Subsequently, the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs for restoration of the Civil Suit filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in MJC Civil No.1/2024 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kartala, District Korba and the original Civil Suit was restored to its original number. The application preferred by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also allowed vide order dated 28.10.2024 passed in MJC Civil No.2/2024 and the ex-parte decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kartala was set-aside. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also challenging the pending proceeding of partition of the accounts before the Tehsildar Kartala making an averment inter alia that the suit property situated at Village Barkonha was inherited by them through Raghunath, who died leaving behind his only son- Makhan. Makhan also died in the year 1981 leaving behind his only daughter Rashkuwar, who died in the year 1983. After the death of Rashkuwar, the subject land was recorded in the name of her son, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 herein. The applicant/defendant in his written statement raised the ground that the daughters have no inheritance rights to their father’s property. He has also taken a further plea that Makhan had adopted him on 05.04.1958 and he has executed a Will on 15.06.1978 5 in his favour and on this ground, he also filed a counter suit. On 29.08.2023, the counsel, who was engaged by the plaintiffs, made a submission that he has no instructions to pursue the matter further. Subsequently, admitting the said contention, the Suit was proceeded ex- parte and an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiffs moved an application for restoration of the Suit and also preferred an application for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which were allowed by the impugned order(s). Ultimately, assailing the impugned orders, the present Revisions have been filed by the defendant/applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for setting aside the ex- parte decree and restoration of the Suit, no sufficient cause has been shown. He also submits that though the Medical Certificate has been furnished in support of the aforesaid applications, but the concerned Doctor has not been examined. He would further submit that on the date of the hearing i.e. on 29.08.2023, counsel for the plaintiffs has made a specific plea that the plaintiffs themselves does not want to pursue the matter further. He would further submit that the said plea has been advanced because, on 25.08.2023, the plaintiffs have alienated the subject land by execution of the sale deeds in favour of different persons, as a result of which, they did not have any interest in the subject property. When an ex-parte decree has been passed and the Suit has been decreed in favour of the applicant, the plaintiffs, who had acted in a gross negligent manner, with a malafide intention, preferred such applications. However, the trial Court did not gather such intention of 6 the plaintiffs and took a liberal view in the matter, which is not permissible. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow both the Revisions. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the documents annexed with both the Revisions carefully. 6. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 is a widow and mother of two minor children and a resident of tribal area. The plaintiff preferred the Civil Suit making an averment that the subject property was inherited by her husband in a lawful manner. For the same subject property, certain applications have also been preferred before the Revenue Officers. In such Civil Suit, the applicant had taken a plea that (i) the daughters had no inheritance right to the property at the relevant period and (ii) the subject property was acquired by him by an Adoption Deed executed by erstwhile owner late Makhan. The defendant also averred that Makhan had also executed a Will in his favour. In this view of the matter, a serious disputed question of facts and law is involved in the case. 7. On 29.08.2023, Counsel who has been engaged on behalf of the plaintiffs, has made a submission that since no clear instruction has been given by the plaintiffs, he cannot pursue the matter further. Moreover, the above counsel appeared on behalf of the original Counsel and made such submission. Consequently, the Court proceeded ex-parte against the plaintiffs. 8. Certainly, in the instant matter, it has been alleged that the plaintiffs have executed the sale deeds on 25.8.2023 i.e. prior to the date of the 7 hearing, in favour of different persons. However, the question is as to whether the counsel, who was engaged by the plaintiffs, has informed about the serious legal consequences/outcome that may arise on account of his such submission in the said Civil Suit, or not is not clear. 9. It is expected from a Lawyer duly engaged to inform about the legal consequences of the cases to the parties concerned even if he continues or not continues with the same. It is also his responsibility to communicate with the client and inform him about the risk of no representation. If the Lawyer is duly engaged by a party, it is his duty to inform him in writing about the risk involved in taking such plea before making any submission in the Court. Furthermore, if the concerned lawyer is not interested to pursue the matter, he should inform the party to engage another lawyer. 10.Even in the matter of Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani And Others vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani And Another1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that before making a plea for no instructions, interest of justice required that a fresh notice with actual date of appearance should have been sent to the parties. 11.In the matter of Rafiq And Another vs. Munshilal And Another.2, it was observed in Para-3 as under (relevant portion):- "3.The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to 1 AIR 1993 SC 1182 2 (1981) 2 SCC 788 8 select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest………………....” 12.In the matter of Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kotah And Another3, while dealing with the case arising out of Order 9, duty of the Court was reminded and while deciding the case, observations made at Paras-16 to 17 are apt which read as under:- “16. Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is ‘procedure’, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to ‘both’ sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.” “17. Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be 3 AIR 1955 SC 425 9 construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.” 13.Reverting back to the facts of the present case, evidently, the plaintiff has furnished a Medical Certificate issued by a qualified Doctor mentioning therein that during the relevant period from 27.08.2023 to 18.12.2023, the plaintiff was suffering from various serious ailments. However, the said Doctor was not examined and this is the only ground raised by the defendants to set-aside the impugned order(s). 14.Considering the aforesaid attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have made out the sufficient cause successfully for their non-appearance, therefore, the impugned order(s) passed by the trial Court for restoration of the Suit and to set aside the ex-parte decree are just and proper. 15.For the foregoing, this Court does not find any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the aforesaid orders invoking any interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. 16.Resultantly, in consequence both the Revisions fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka