^ \ ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR M»C<C» N0^ OP 2007 ( ^rising out of the order dtd, 07.09.2006 ;-. passed by the Hon(ble High g^urfe And the consequential order dfcd»T8e10»2006 passed by the Additional Registrar ( Judicial )^ APPELLAIW D^FEKID^NT N0.1 •^' Kamal Kumar Aggfi(wal^ Son of late Shri Jagdish Rai Agrawal^ aged abDUfc 45 years^ Occupation s Business^ resi- dent of JUQQ Gaddi Road^ Ambikapur^ Tehsil and I:blice Sfcation : ^mbikapur^ Distt s Surguja ( C.G. ) VERSUS RESFOMDENTS SK'AINTIFFS 2. Beni Prasad Shukla^ Son %f lafce Shri Hari Pras,ad Shulcla, aged about 64 y^ars^ resident of BramhQpQra^ Ambikapur^ Tehsil & Police Station s Ambikapur^ District : Sarguja ( C*G ). Ra^ Chandra Shukla^ Son of late Shri Hari Prasad Shukla^ aged atout 58 years» ^°1to^ ^3. Anil Chandra Shukla^ Son of late Shri Hari Prasad Shukla ( Both are resident of Kharsiya Road^ ^rnbikapur^ District $ Syrguja ( C(G ), APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF A SECOND APPEAL VIDE APEEAL N0^456 O? 2006 P^RTIES BEING KAMLA KUM^R AGRAWAL Vs. BENI PRASAD SHUKLA & OTHERS. XI-HC-78 ^n^r^Tf^ri^ r" •< cT§TT3TR?T$h^lcb |to-t, v +11*1^1 sh*1«ch 3^T r^i^icl^, ^Tn^4l<o, f®t<r1H^< ^;.N..<-:&.5't?...»'./.^ 200-1 l^ W^\ W<h ('i,c<^s<(^T) ?^<rrW ;Rf?cT 3TT^?T 1S.Q2.2007 Shri. D. K,VishwakarraaJ Heard on M.C.P. No. delay ui filiag tlie appMcationl 18/2007 as the said appUcati davs. The Second Appeal wa^ listed 011 default for deficit of| two weeks' time was allowedl with a preemptory order thal period of two weeks, the app| refereuce to Uiis Bench. However the default ^ period, as a result of which| 18.10.2006 ia conipliance of The iiistaiit application| a delay of79 days. The reasons assigned delav of 79 davs is that the only on 30.10.2006 aiid t 12,12,2006. However, he couJ aad ui these circiinistaaces only on06.Gl. 2007. 1 have heard counsel fo] <=hi^Td41-< ^i^^T^te^t<Ri^i< ^^ri^TW^T coiinsel for the petitioner, 0/2007 apptication for conclonation of for restoratiou registered as M,C,C. No. 3ii has been prefen'ed with a delay of 79 preferred by the applicaiit which was ICourt fees on 07.09.2006. On that date to the appellaiit to reBiove me default if tlie defaiilt is not reBioved withui a >t?al shall be liable for disiiiissal without |as not renioved withiii the stipulated tfae Second appeal was dismissed 011 t|he preemptory order dated 07.09.2006. Ifor restoration has also ^been flled with E^r preferriiig the said appUcation for a ^plicaiit came to know aboiit tlie order t.ien certi&ed copy was obtaiaed 011 i|d not aiTange nioney for the Coiirt fees 1|he application for restoration was filed tlie appUcaiit, XI-HC-78 3:n^T^)T^i<=b fT8TT3TT??T5h^l<=b ^ *11^1C-11 Sb<4|Ct» 3^T <^|^|cn<q, ^Tfl^^Ko, fa^K-iy F^ ...^...c».c^..QG;.!^j^ 200 7 3ll^l M^«h(*ic<^c«^T) ^<TT^K^ri?cT3T1^T -2-- igbr The reasons assigned for restoration is not szifficie.it the saaie cannot be condone<B delay is rejected. Consequently M.C.C. Njo. 18/2007 is also rejected. <=t)i^I<n41-i ^i^<nT^te1c^'<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T 3r delay in miag the nistaiit appllcation Lt therefore the delay of 79 days m fiMng 1 mid tlie applicatioii for condonation of Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.