^T^T^T fa^Jcb 3TT^T '^yw^f^TT T ^s^ r^ii^i<nct ?R, ^itOTS, ^<ni<ii< SIT^T XR^ "WTW 'SFlf^**'"****"''*^ ' ' *'^^^^^^^^ ^ 200 'f^^af*'**^^* ^TT^Tl'^TT^H: ^Tit?r <=M<<i(<n<fll "RnFI^Tf ^ fST3t iFfl^K '^3rf^PT3:I7^F HI6H COURTOF Ci •IHATTISe^H AT BIL4SPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLEMR. DHIRErtlbft^ MISHR^ & HON'BLE MR. PRITCNlKER DIW^KER, JJ APPLICANT/ APPELLANT M. C.IC N0.72/2006 Puhutt'am Naik, aged about 51 years, Son of Punau Ram !s{JGik, resictent of Kududand, Bitespur, Tah. and Dist. |BJlaspur (C.&.5, preseht resident of (&eneral Mana^er (Managing), Apex Bank, Rdipur, Tahsil ftaipui Vs NON-APPLKANTS RESPONbENTS 1. Vj|nal Singh, wife of D.P. Singh Thakur, r^ident of ChhGtsrjes SG!}, ,New SarkGnda, Bijaspur, Tahsjt and Distnct Bllospur (Cjihattisgarh) 2. S^dte of Chhattisgarh, Through Cotlector, Bi|aspur (Chhattisgarh) OR/ (31s Dhirendra Mishra, J; L The aDDlicant has filed th the CPC for restorotion ^ bistrict kaipur (Chhattisgarh) Present: Mr. ri.B. Ayurwu!, Sr. Advocd^s with Aliss Rinki TaniFukcu-, Advocute for the appiicant. mr. SuQnir A9arwai, AdvQca+e for Mr, P,K. Bhaduri. Panel Lawyer| |Tor responcienT No.i- |for the respondent No.2. L QR&6R [March, 2009) S oDDlicatiw under Order 41 ftule 19 of of F,A. No,97/05, as the same was [^?;:.;;"' ^n^T'^T fa'iich 3n^?T ^RWgf^T ^S^ '<1t<^l<yl^ ?R. ^ftWT5. f5RWCT7 3ir^?r 'q'ra? WV^V5^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 200 ' l^sr'"""""""'""""""""" 3TI^T;^RTT^R ^TftPf —'LH t e dismissed on 12.1.2006 by appellant/appliccint herein, 2, Lear^ned Senior Couns^l matter was listed beforfc however, counset for mcrtter was cdlied. as hej Court and therefore, 1{l pirosecution, He furt-^ has been immediatety fi 3. Ontheotherhand, respondent No.l vehem4 4. Having heard learned c\ the reasons assianed in| by the affidavit of th^ that absence of the 4< before this Court was 5. Accordinaly; the applico|l restored to its original 1|his Courl- for want of flppearance of the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge <^l^(<rt4T1 'RPR^ff ^ f^T^ iptl^K '^3^PT3TT^T for the applicant submits that the >rfethe Hon'bJe Sinale Judcie on 12.1.2006, appellant could not appear when the was arauina his case before some other )he matter was dismissed for want of ^er submits that the instant application led within the limitation, jSudhir Agarwal, learned counsel forthe ^ntly opposed the application, ^unsel for the parties, having regard to |the application, which is also support-ed counsel for apDlicant, we are satisfied |oun^el for the applicant on 12.L2006 bbnafide, is atlowed and F.A. No.97 of 2005 Is lumber, — icoffion Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge