CI IN Th HEGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH M.A.No. (31/ /2002 g5 .1”1/ :-J”Ramesh Kumar Savarker Aged about 35 years, S/o Late Mansa Ram Saverker, R/o _»L akholi , Rajnandgaon plican‘t in original claim suit'No. 132/2001 and Applicant in MJc No.29/2001 Decided by the Court of Shri Surendra Tiwari l.vA.‘D.J . Rajnandgaon. VERSUg" gppellant ‘4: Respondents 7 =- wv’fgai Kumar Gupta S/o M.L.Gupta, aged about 29 year’s-5‘ R/o Jawahar Nagar, Bhilai Q.No. L 1"'G O2 Distt. Durg A Non Applic‘éht No.1 in original claim suit No.152/2001 as wellas M.J.C.No., 29/2001 decided by I.A.n.J. snm Surendra Tiwari, Rajnandgaon. r” t 2‘7Kélidas Sao S/o Ayodhya Sac R/o him/7o Shana Nagar, Bhilai. Near E1gli$h Medium School, ‘Eistt.Durg. Non Applicant No.2%13 original claim suit No. 132/2001 as well as M.J.C. No. 29/2001 decided by Shri Surendra Tiwari/I .A. D.J . Rajnandgaan. 53"»The'New India Insurance Co. Ltd“ V’ Regional Office Infront of Thakkar Chambers Project Automobiles. G. E.Road, ‘ Bhilai, Distt. Durg. w” Non Applicant No.3 inr original claim i suit No. iW 132/2001 as well as M.J.c. No. 29/2001 Decided by shri g surendra Ti wari I . A. D.J .Rajnand gaon AT XI-HC-22 3am, m, mm . m :6).2.(.§Z/a% Wm None for tha appellant. Ms.R.V.Praveena, counsei The matter is iisted on de : with correct address for issuanca is directed to remove the default within §e§en days failing which the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed without réferenceto the Bench. - . Counsel for the appeuant . for the respondent. uh for non-payment of fresh process fee f notice to' respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge (iiéW) W m mmw mm§wm %ar%tran%ar 21.03.2005: - XI-HC—22 HW,WW,W ' mm mg.‘/..2r.% ° L mama; zoo W WW mwv WWEWW %3T%1wn%sT 20/06/2005 M.A. 152/02 (Ramesh Kumar Savarker Vs. Vijai Kumar Gupta and others) was listed before Hon'ble court on 21.03.05, and on that date Hon’ble court directed the appeuant to. pay fresh process fee with correct address forV issuance of notice to respondent nos. 1 & 2 within a week, failing which the appeal shaii be iiable to be dismissed without reference to the Bench. From the report of Process Clerk dt. 28.4.2005 and Filing Clerk dated 16.5.2005 (kindly see Note Sheet part) it is apparent that the counsel for the appellant has neither paid RF. nor filed any application in this regard, as per court order dated 21.3.2005, P.F. should have been paid within a week from the date of order i.e. on or before 28.3.2005. Thus, oounsel has failed to comply with the Hon’ble court order dated 21.3.2005. In view of the above and per- emptory order dated 21.3.2005 the appeal stood dismissed without reference to the Bench. . Counsel be informed accordingly.” Sdl- A.R (J) (theater)