Jugeshwar v. Chintamani

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No.96 of 2016 1.

Jugeshwar, son of Shri Phulsai Binjhwar, aged about 65 years. 2.

Maheshwar, son of Shri Phulsai Binjhwar, aged about 60 years. 3.

Jageshwar, son of Shri Phulsai Binjhwar, aged about 55 years. 4.

Pandu, son of Shri Ramsai Binjhwar, aged about 60 years. All are by Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Village Kokadi, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG).

---- Applicants

Versus

1.

Chintamani, son of Shri Belochan Bariha, aged about 42 years, resident of Village Kokadi, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG).

2.

Smt. Anusaya, wife of Shri Uttara Bariha, aged about 39 years, resident of Village Jalpur, Post Ketuwa, P.S. & Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG).

3.

Mohan Singh, S/o Shri Belochan Bariha, aged about 33 years, resident of Village Kokadi, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG).

4.

Smt. Chunki, W/o Shri Bulu Bariha, aged about 29 years, R/o village Paterapali, P.S. Singhorha, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG).

5.

Gurudev, S/o Shri Belchan Bariha, aged about 18 years, R/o Village Kokadi, Tahsil Saraipali.

6.

Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). ---- Non-applicants For Applicants : Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate.

For Non-applicants No.1 to 5: Shri P.K.C. Tiwary, Senior Advocate with Shri Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Non-applicant No.6 : Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

08/07/2016 (1) Heard on I.A.No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

(2) On due consideration, I am satisfied that the applicants have succeeded in explaining the cause of delay in filing the MCC and, therefore, I.A.No.01 is allowed. Delay in filing the MCC is condoned. (3) Learned counsel for the applicants is heard on restoration application.

(4) The applicants are seeking restoration of Second Appeal No.472/2005 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 26.06.2014.

(5) On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and the grounds taken in the restoration application, I am satisfied that the absence of the applicants' counsel on 26.06.2014 when Second Appeal No.472/2005 was taken-up for hearing was based on bonafide grounds.

(6) Accordingly, M.C.C. No.96/2016 is allowed and Second Appeal No.472/2005 is restored to its original number, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to Shri Kripesh G. Kela, counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 within a period of 15 days from today. Respondents are free to raise all objections in the second appeal. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-