^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. ADDlicants/ Appetlants •c M.C.C.No.155 of 2011 1 Ku. Madhuri Sidar, D/o Sudarshan Singh Sidar, aged about22 years 2 Vikas Kumar, S/o Sudarshan Singh Sidar, agedabout 19 years 3 Ku. Tanu Sidar, aged about18 years (earlier a minor at the time of filing claim her birth certificate is annexed), D/o Sudarshan Singh Sidar All R/o Village Godhi, P.S. Tamnar, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh VERSUS 1. VinodKumar Sharam, S/o Nandlai Sharma, R/o C/o Puja Transport, Gandhigaj, Raigarh (CG) 2. Dharamdas Mahant, S/o Shanichar Das Mahant, aged about 41 years, a driver, R/o Dhimarapu,, Ashok Vihar Colony, Raigarh (CG) 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opposite Gopi Talkies, Raigarh (CG) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF M.A.C. No.486 /2009 Present: Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Non - applicants Respondents ORDER (28th March, 2011) •^.^:^ '^-... ¥"".,.... ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the restoration petition. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned, counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioners have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration petition. 3) I.A. No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the restoration petition is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the restoration petition. 5) The petitioners are seeking restoration of M.A.C. No.486 of 2009, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated05.11.2009. 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitionersV appellants' counsel on 05.11.2009 when M.A.C. No.486 of2009 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds. 7) M.C.C. No. 155 of 2011, therefore, is allowed and M.A.C. No.486 of 2009 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Chief Justice ^ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge