XI-HC-22 3:n^rw RFIRi.m^T ^Hichflf^T 3^ ^PfRra, ®TTIu'is,RciKiy 3TT^?T Mtltta II*<CTI shHl«n^.^^..^^ R<>«d ioo 3i?T^?Tg<-dW cbi<<td41-i inn??fffte^t<Ri«i< ^sri^iTsn^r MISC. APPEAL No. 895/2004 Appellant Applicaat R.espoadents 1. Mon-apnBeant* 2. Soukhflal, S/o. Lakhanlal, agedabout 45 years, Kurm^ Agriculturist, R/o. Village Newsa, P.S. Ratan^ur, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) Versus Gaag^. Ram, Son of Raindayal Kurmi, aged t^5 years Ram.ejshwar, son of Ramdayal Kurttd., aged 42 vefcrs Durg^i Prasad, son of Ramdayal Kiu-mi, aged l BEF-ORE: HON'BLE 22 years, Saiilc^sh, sou of Miu'aiilal Kiu'uu, aged 28 veare Ail i^sidents of village Newsa, P.S. RataalpuT, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ^iRI DHIRENDRA MISHR&, J 11-4-2007 Shri Alok Bakshi, Advo|cate for the appeUaat. Shri V.K. Mishra, Advo|;ate for the respondents. Heard on M.C.P. 1222)r'2004, appUcation for condonation of delay ia filing this appeal as|fhe appeal has been preferred with a delay of 282 delays, as per ofip.ee note dated 18-8-2004. The grouads taken by| the applicaat in fhe appUcatipn for condonation of delay have be|en seriously disputed by fhe eounsel for the respondents in their feply. It has been stated ia fhe reply fhat fhe appeUaut was prosec uting his inatter persoaally before the -(ffl^^?) -Sl •f-^it. m w h.i UUS^IS.j. ^'•^?; XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f^Twaii^r 3iiri?;iri??T -^{^i^^ 3^ "i||^lld4, t9Ti1«'i<o, IsK'iluy 3TT??TMath ^^ ^,, <v? '.'^ ^ o. ^ssr-r/^ ^ tlilCTisniitn ••••••••••••••••••"• g^ 200 R<>«A 3?I^T5T(ITW«(en Cominissioner; he was Coimnissioner and had put the reason assigned bythe on the face ofit is false. In respondent as also certified c^ annexecl. Considcrmg the rival c<j assigned by fhe appeUant foi\ de]av of 282 davs cannot be fhe appUcation (M.C.P. No. 1; rejected. Consequently, the misc bv IJTnitation. *i<iFfi41-f wi?TfffteI^t<Rit<;i< Siaif^Tsn^T ^resent on 6-9-2003 before the is s^nature ia the order sheet and a^peUaat for delay in filing the appeal si^pport of the reply, thc affidavit of the )py of order dated 0-9-2003 has been ^ntentions of the parties, fhe reasons fiting this appeal with aa inordiaate ;onstrued sufBcient and accordingly |22/ 2004) for condonation of delay is appeal is also dismissed as barred Sd/- \ BHJRENDRA MBHRA^ Judge .'—~ m ^1:1: