^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No.678/2010 APPELLANT Defendant No. 1 RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs VERSUS Lakhan Lal, S/o Mannu Lal, aged about 35 years, Cultivator, Gram Saragtora, Tahsil 8s District Mahasamund (C.G.) (a) Shivcharan S/o Late Shri Maansingh Yadav, aged about 48 years, (b) Inderechand S/o Lafe Shri Maansingh Yadav, aged about 45 years, (c) Mst. Alena Bai, W/o Dharam Singh Yadav, aged about 55 years, Virendra Kumar S/o Vaishnav Prasad Yadav, aged about 32 years, Krishna Nand, S/o Vaishnav Prasad Yadav, aged about 28 years, Minor Hirondi Bai, D/o Vaishnav Prasad Yadav, aged about 16 years, Wali father Vaishnav Prasad Yadav, S/o Bhanwar Singh Yadav Vaishnav Prasad Yadav, S/o Bhanwar Singh Yadav, aged about 60 years, All are resident of Gram Saragtora, Mahasamund (Plaintiffs) The State of Madhya Pradesh Through: Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2) Sushila Bai, W/o Bedram Yadav, aged about 35 years, Resident of Bartunga, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Defendant No. 3) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF SECOND APPEAL N0. 102/2001. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) 7. Present:- Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents No. l(a) to l(c). Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 5. Mr. Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No. 6. None for the respondent No. 7. .ss^- l:?;2i>. < e' ,f l& is ti^ .J9/ '& 7. 8. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 21/01/2011) Present petition for restoration of second appeal No. 102/2001 dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 3/7/20Q9 has been filed after 470 days of its limitation. Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing the present petition. • Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is complete negligence of appellant i.e. his and he apologies the same. Considerin; the aforesaid facts, I.A. No. 1 is allowed. Delay in filing the present petition is hereby condoned. Also heard on I.A. No. 2, application for exemption from filing certified copy of the order dated 3/7/2009. Qn due consideration, I.A. No. 2 is allowed. Appellant is exempted from Gling certified copy of the order dated 3/7/2009. Also heard on I.A. No. 4, application for taking documents on record. On due consideration, I.A. No. 4 is allowed. Documents are taken on record. • Also heard on I.A.No. 5, application for taking certified copy of order dated 3/7/2009 on record. On due consideration, I.A. No. 5 is allowed. Certified copy of order dated 3/7/2009 are taken on record. I.A. No. 3 & I.A. No. 6, application for urgent hearing of the case are stands disposed of. Vide orderdated 3/7/2009 second appeal No. 102/2001 was dismissed for want of prosecution. '^- •s y'^ .^s'??^ ^ ^s ''f,^vSSf'y?:K^.is'. '^ vc-y '•^5?''..^ 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits fhat it is his mistake and he was not cautious but inistake of eounsel should not effect in the final right of the party. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that decree of the trial Court has been executed. 11. On due consi'deration arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, restoration petition is allowed. Second appeal No. 102/2001 dismissed for want of prosecution dated 3/7/2009 is restored in its original number. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge r- 1