1 CGHC010000112012 2026:CGHC:41917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1600 of 2012 1 - Nitin Chaturvedi S/o Late O.P. Chaturvedi Aged About 42 Years R/o Ravinagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Cooperative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Registrar Cooperative Society, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mahendra Kumar Kothari (Dead) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Date- 11.07.2018. 3A - Rama Kothari (Died) Through Legal Heirs.. As Per Honble Court Order Dated – 13-07-2023. 3A(i) - Smt. Aditi Rahul Shah W/o Rahul Shah Aged About 48 Years R/o Flat No. 4a, 4th Floor, Jaipur, Jems 15th Road, Santacruz Mumbai (Maharastra) 3A(ii) - Soumya Kothari S/o Late Mahendra Kothari Aged About 43 Years R/o 6c, B Block, Marlin, Jaishree Vihar Mandi Road, Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3A(iii) Jai Kothari S/o Late Mahendra Kothari Aged About 40 Years R/o 6c, B Block, Marlin, Jaishree Vihar Mandi Road, Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) NIRMALA RAO 2 4 - Raipur Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Swami Atmanand Ward No.3, Choubey Colony, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Ms. Isha Jajodia, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for the following reliefs: “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the revisional authority in revision case no. 78/48/2010 and the order passed by the Second Appellate Court may kindly be upheld and the petitioner may kindly be afforded an opportunity of hearing. 1 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.4 – Raipur Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit executed a sale deed in respect of Plot No.5, admeasuring 2,942 sq. ft., situated at Choubey Colony, Raipur, in favour of respondent No.3 on 1.8.2001. According to Condition No.8 of the bye-laws and the sale deed, respondent No.3 was required to commence construction of a house within a period of six months and complete the same within a period of two years. Respondent No.3 failed to comply with the said conditions and, therefore, the allotment in favour of respondent No.3 was cancelled, and a sale deed was 3 executed in favour of the petitioner herein on 24.2.2005. Thereafter, respondent No.3 raised a dispute under Section 64 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, before the Deputy Registrar, Raipur, challenging the decision taken by the Cooperative Society. 3. The Deputy Registrar passed an ex parte order against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.3 on 20.5.2005. The petitioner herein moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 15.12.2005, wherein a specific ground was taken that the advocate engaged by the petitioner had died prematurely on 14.11.2005 and, therefore, no one could appear on the date of hearing. The said application was rejected by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 5.12.2006. The petitioner herein challenged the said order by filing a first appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2008. A second appeal was preferred before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was allowed vide order dated 24.3.2009, and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Registrar to decide the same afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. Respondent No.3 preferred a revision before the State Government, which was allowed vide order dated 6.3.2012. Against the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, as respondent No.3 failed to comply with the conditions enumerated in the bye-laws of the Society and the sale deed executed in his favour, respondent No.4 cancelled the allotment of the plot and executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 24.2.2005. He would contend that, though notice was duly served upon the petitioner and an advocate was also 4 engaged to contest the matter, on account of the premature demise of the said advocate, no one could appear, and an ex parte order was passed by the Deputy Registrar on 20.5.2005. He would submit that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, considered the ground raised by the petitioner in the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and, therefore, allowed the same, and that the State Government committed an error of law while setting aside the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that an ex parte order was passed by the Deputy Registrar on 20.5.2005 and that, prior to the said date, neither any Vakalatnama had been filed nor had counsel engaged by the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He would submit that the stand taken by the petitioner was not found acceptable, as the counsel engaged by the petitioner died on 14.11.2005, after the date of the ex parte order, and, therefore, the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC was rejected. He would contend that the Joint Registrar affirmed the said order, whereas the Registrar, without taking note of these facts, allowed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner. He would submit that the State Government rightly allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.3. He would contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer, would support the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5 8. Admittedly, an ex parte order was passed on 20.5.2005. The petitioner herein moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte order on 15.12.2005. In the said application, it was stated that information regarding the ex parte order passed by the Deputy Registrar was given by an advocate, namely, Ashish Kumar Jha, on 25.11.2005, but the said advocate failed to file his own affidavit in support of the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The advocate who moved the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on affidavit stated that the petitioner had approached Advocate late Rajesh Jain immediately after service of notice, an appropriate advocate's fee was paid to him, and the Vakalatnama was also signed by the petitioner. It was further pleaded that the advocate engaged by the petitioner failed to file his Vakalatnama and appear before the Deputy Registrar and, consequently, an ex parte order was passed on 20.5.2005. The learned Deputy Registrar rejected the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC as well as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the advocate engaged by the petitioner had not filed his Vakalatnama before the Deputy Registrar and that advocate Ashish Kumar Jha, who had enquired about the ex parte order, had not filed his affidavit. It was also observed in the said order that the ex parte order was communicated to the petitioner vide Dispatch No.1255 dated 24.5.2005. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in appeal, set aside the said order on the ground that sufficient reason had been assigned by the petitioner in the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and on account of the demise of the advocate engaged by the petitioner, no one could 6 appear and an ex parte order was passed. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed. 9. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar would show that an affidavit was filed along with the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC by an advocate, Mr. Vinit Tiwari, who stated that there had been a meeting between the petitioner and advocate Rajesh Jain. He further stated that a fee of Rs.1,000/- was paid to the said advocate and that the Vakalatnama was also filed. It appears that, though the petitioner, after engaging the counsel, did not enquire about the status of the case and an ex parte order was passed on 20.5.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was negligent or not diligent. 10.It is a well-settled principle of law that courts should adjudicate disputes between the parties so as to advance substantial justice. The courts of justice require that, as far as possible, disputes should be adjudicated on merits. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and remitted the matter to the Deputy Registrar to decide the same afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 24.3.2009 appears to be proper, valid and reasonable. The State Government, while hearing the revision petition filed by respondent No.3, set aside the order passed by the Registrar and, thus, committed an illegality. Accordingly, order Annexure-P/1 dated 6.3.2012 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, Cooperative Department, is hereby set aside, and the order passed by the Registrar dated 24.3.2009 is hereby restored. As the dispute between the parties 7 has been pending since 2005, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is directed to take a decision within a period of six months. 11.Having considered the dispute involved in the present case, the petitioner and respondent No.3 are both directed to maintain status quo as it exists today. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi