•ii^i;i!K^IEt;'Sil?Ii!SiH@&?sSs^i!S*^^TS^S: t.i'!¥!r^''' S'''h:?S'? i::.-^^^^ii ^^(yisi^i^^^^^^^^^^easa-^'^:•;^sw&^s^s^: isro7s''N^iil>',^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.C.C.NO ^ 72005 (IN THE MATTER OF F.A.NO.95/2001) .APPLICANTS 7 ~ ^ ^ \ ^ s^. ^/ y^'a/' v-~s ^w ^^v ^/ /^ r:^? .^^1^ t>T S •VS ^/ NON^PPLICA^T Jeewandamal Kakkad, S/o.iShri Phool Sihgli, Prop. Jeewandm.al and' Brothers, Ayfo! Parts Dealer, R/o. A20 Shankar Nagar, Shdp Anand TaUdes biulding, MbudUapara, Raipur (CG) { 2. ^ Surendra Kumar Arora, son of tJeewandairial; Kabkad, QfEee Anand Talkies buUding, MoudHapara, Raipur (CG) VERSUS ^'unjab and Sindh Bank,.A Corporated Organization under Baniking Coinpanies Act, 1980, hgiving its; head ofiiGe at Rajendra Place, New DeUii, and oiie of its branches at Roa4, RarpUr(G.G.) f MISCELLANEOUS APPLieA'EIONFQK'KES'mRA'nON.QFEIKS'I' APPEftlijNig^ZliOl K.K. ^Ui 4~ XI-HC-22 'SSf afpncNr, ®Tnu*id,I°lcliuy an^rqiT ,)^N;3TI^T gmw^fei' tllH^I shll'n 311^1 451 <* ^.^...c.fi^.te.^/ 2003 ••••f^% aii^ig'wiWHfer chioM^ inwffif te^t ^Rzre ^sri^irsn^T D.B: HON'BLE JUSTICE FAKHtlUDDIN. EB OESHMUKH. JJ HOH'BLE JUSTICT; DILIP RA< 30,9.2005 Shri Bhaskar Payashi, l^arned counsel for the applicants, Shri Malaya Bhaduri, le^rned cpun&el for the respondent. Heard on M.C.P. No, 7^6/05 for conclonation of delay in nlingtheM.C.C. 103/05 forre|itoration ofF.A. No. 95/2001. Learned Counsel for. applicants submits/' that . the applicants were not aware altout listing and dismissal of the first appeal by this Court vidi^ orderdated 28/8/2001.on the ground of non prosecution. t\e also submits that due to bona fide mistake the applicants h^ve not filed the application for restoration of first appeal to if|s original number and prays for condoning the delay in filing th^ present M.C.C, On the other hand, 'ea|i'ned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the [applicants themselves were ^not wgilant about their appeal, hei|ice they cannot take the benefit of their own fault. Having considered the fects and circumstances of the case and material on recorc|, the applic^tion (M.C.P, No, 726/05) for eondonation of de|ay in'filing the application. for restoration of first appeal is alljiwed arid the delay in filing the: same is condoned.' Accordingly, M.C.P, No. 7^6/05 stands disposed of. Heard. It is stated that First App y listed for admission. It was at t ial was filed and the same was ~ie preliminary stage. Thereafter (<f^^^) •[lEliiwiiir'Bmi XI-HC-22 3^ ^irareFT, aTfld'is, Ritii'My 3D^T?iT ^iwantw OTW^g' <-^./ ^ 3TT^?T iracb IIHCTI aiwrei Wi; 200 Rl'b.ri, sii^i ^wiw^ifer 1. application U/S 148 of the <| payment of court fees has be^ further stated that the sai(j prosecution on 28,8.2001 wit] Learned counsel for th^ has been filed for restoratii number. 'He further stated tlhat' the counsel was not' aware of listing the case resulting in tt appearing on :that date. The c are siinilar cases pending be: restoring the first appeal to it' Not opposed. Having considered the A copy of this order be ]; The appeal is listed for Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge =bi<<f<-i'iii-i iii<iTffrs'<3 <fat<i< ^sriwrsn^r 3.P.C. for enlargement'of time for n filed along with the appeal. It is appeal was dismissed for non i liberty to revive. applieants stated that this •M.C.C. ?n of first appeal to ' its original e disinissal ofthe appeal. He also submitted th.at there was a bi|)na fide'mistake on.his part in not ounsel also poinfed out that there bre the Lok Adalat. He prays for i driginal number. facts and ciroumstances of the case and material available oi|i record, the application is allowed and F.A. No. 95/2001 is restoji-ed to its original number. j)laced in First Appeal. further orders. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb DeshmukU Judge (tft^y^)