633 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON’BLE SHR! DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Present: Shri D.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri F.S. Khare, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.L. Kurmi, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (30‘5 November, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J By this petition. the applicants have prayed for extension of time for depositing cost of Rs.300/- as per order dated 9‘“ August, 2007 passed in M.C.C.NO.264/O7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Second Appeal No. 260/07 preferred by the applicants herein was dismissed in default. The appiicants tiled M.C.C.No.264/07 for restoration of the second appeal and the same was allowed vide order dated 9‘" August, 2007 on the condition of appiicants’ depositing cost of Rs.300/- with the High Court Legal Aid Committee within a week. However. on account of oversight, the aforesaid i i M.C.C. No. 505/2009 Applicants 1. Har Prasad S/o MotilaL aged about 44 years, R/o Village Bodri, PHC No.1, R/C Bilha, Tahsii Bilha District Bilaspur (CG) 2. Jagdish Prasad, aged about 32 years. S/o Jugal Prasad Satnami, R/o Village Dodki, Tahsil Biiha. District Bilaspur (CG) 3. Abdul Hussain, S/o Sakir Hussain, R/o Khaparganj, Bitaspur. Tahsit & District Biiaspur (CG) Versus Respondent 1. Ghansiram, S/o Mohan Lal Bramhan, aged about 48 years, Manager of Joint Hindu Family with four brothers and widow mother. 2. Babuial S/o Shri Sundar Lai Bramhan, aged about 61 years, 3. Mewa Lal S/o Her Prasad, aged about 55 years, Manager of Joint Hindu Family including himself with unite joint Hindu family members nephew Chandradhar and minor nice Ganga Bai and widow aunt Shanti Bai, All R/o Village-Bodri. PHC No.1, RIC Bilha, Tahsil-Bilha, District-Bilaspur (CG) / W \:v ; J._ condition could not be complied with within time and in these circumstances, the instant application for extension of time to deposit the cost has been iiied. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that there is an inordinate deiay of more than two years in tiling this application for extension of time and the same is not bonafide and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the applicants should be afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits in Second Appeal No.260/07. Accordingiy. the application is allowed. The applicants are granted a ”further time of one week to deposit the cost imposed. Sd/~ Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sdl- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge