1 CGHC010324682026 2026:CGHC:37492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1066 of 2026 1 - Brij Gopal Tamrakar S/o Late Shri Gandhi Prasad Tamrakar, Aged About 76 Years Tamerpara, Dhamdha, Tahsil-Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2 - Lalit Tamrakar S/o Brij Gopal Tamrakar, Aged About 46 Years R/o Tamerpara, Dhamdha, Tahsil-Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3 - Subhash Tamrakar, S/o Brij Gopal Tamrakar, Aged About 43 Years R/o Tamerpara, Dhamdha, Tahsil-Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Vijay Tamrakar S/o Late Shri Gandhi Prasad Tamrakar, Aged About 68 Years R/o Hatri Bazaar Dhamdha, Thasil-Dhamdha, Distt. Durg. (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.07.2026 passed by SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.24 11:08:36 +0530 2 learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhamdha, District – Durg (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and ex parte order dated 06.03.2025 has been set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the case number of the original proceedings was Civil Suit No. 32A/2021 whereas in the impugned order dated 16.07.2026, the learned trial Court restored the Civil Suit No. 32A/2010 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.03.2025. He would further submit that the case No. 32A/2010 is not in existence, therefore, it can not be restored and the order passed by learned trial Court itself is erroneous on the face of its record. He would draw attention of this Court to the page No.8 of the petition which is the copy of application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC, in which the case number has been mentioned as Original Civil Suit 32/2021. Further, page number 11, in which the case number also mentioned as M.J.C. 32/2021 and the impugned order in which the case number has been mentioned as 32A/2010, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, since they raised the dispute about the restoration of the particular case number as has been claimed by the respondent in his application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC that is 32A/2021, whereas in the impugned order, the case number reflected that 32A/2010, therefore, instead of going into merits of the case, I would deem it appropriate to 3 dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the learned trial Court and apprise the said discrepancies in the number of the civil suit which is sought to be restored pursuant to the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC filed by the respondent. If such an application is filed, the learned trial Court shall verify the correct particulars and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit