^ ^&^r p ^:^^s^.>:--"""" p;es3';l "i .'< ^:. da d..-"^_ \__ __ ___ __ ^ --.„ ^-^---.^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: C.G. M.C.C. No. Of 2005 J> (Arising out ofCivil Revision No. 163 Of1999) AN APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF CIVIL REVISION NO.T63/1999 "BHUDHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE BANK OFJNDIA & OTHERS",DISMISSED IN DEFAULF ON 12.7.2005 BY HON'BLE SHRI S.K.SINHA-J Applicant : Bhudhar Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Kedar Nath Sharma,aged about 56 years, Proprietor M/s Sharma Saw Mill, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Non-applicants : 1) State Bank Oflndia, Through its Branc'h Manager, Main Branch, Raipur 2) Indarchand Dhariwal C/o M/s Ajay Chemicals, Near City Kotwali, Sadar Bazar, Raipur The applicant submits as under:- XI-HC-78 •aTtSTwR-fi* a81T3T1^Taili«t> "-I ^n^ I/ -^ *11*IWI Sh+lich 3^'^lFTRpr, »Tfl*<'l<s,Rldiuy^ HCC - I^C /o^_ i- ^[ 200 ^ gn^TMat) ('icil3°'s°f) SRiraT trisa'an^T 11.12.200e Cdurt ih wfell Shri Ratan Pustv, Couns^l Shri Gautam Bhaduri, None for respondenl No.2, Arguments on this MCC The Civil Revision No.16; neither the applicant nor the 12/7/2005, when the matterwas] A perusal of the impugnetl Civil Revision from the High directed to be issued to the aDDll date to be fixed by the office. was issued to the aDDlicarrt as issuance of the SPCs, since behalf of the applicant, the prosecution was oassed. Leamed counsel for the prepared to aoDear before this time, he was not able to make The explanation given in bv an affidavit of the appticant In view ofthe above, the The Civil Revision No.163/1 It be listed for consideratiifrn MCCNo.176/2005 stands °bi'ii(ci'i|1-f iii«TffteA<R]'b;i< 5|i Slf^q'sn^T for the apDlicant. Colinsel for respondent No.1. t. thouah served. tleard. t/39 was dismissed for want of orosecution as relspondents had caused their appearance on lcalled out: order would show Ihat afler receiving of this of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, SPC was icant as well as counsel for the appticanl for a oompliance of the aforesaid direction, SPC as counsel for the aoDlioant. but even after notlody caused appearance before this Court on ^foresaid order for dismissal for want of bpplicant submits that the aDDlicant was fullv Qourt, but since he could not reach Bilaspur in art'anaements for reoresentation in his case. bara 3 of the restoration oetition is suDDOrted hidnself. dietition is allowed. 3/1999 is restored to its oriainal number. in the month of Januarv 2007 . _-— - disposed of. i Sd/- 1 SunU Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. '\ 1ir"i;-l