IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.V M.C.C.NO. "71 OF 2011 wv APPLICANT Plaintiff NON-APPLICANTS Respondents .a^ TONa.......... Ps'S3en;S3b).'tin,1-;. Oasi-1—-I3-°i <iu< <_ft.M-'Tl-) (Arising out of S.A./P.R. N0. 3196/2010) Kunjovati, D/o nani Singh,aged about 66 years, R/o Village Kudalgaon; Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) A-tf*, .. ' . • . • • • . • • • •:••'••- VERSUS 1. Ravindra Singh, S/o Laxmi Nath, aged about 51 years, 2; Smt. Bhagvati, W/o Late Sukhan Singh, aged about 61 years, •3. Smt. Banakvati, W/o Dayashankar, aged about 63years, ••4'" Milap (wrongly shown as Milay) Singh, S/o Late kamlochan, aged about 53 years, 5. Devl Singh, S/o Late kamlochan, aged aboutSO years, 6. Smt. Padma, W/o Late Kamlochan (since dead) 7. Trilochan, S/o Khuja, aged abput 76 years, 8. Smt.Santo/W/o Milap Singh, aged atout 26years, 9. Smt. Foolo, W/o Devi Singh, aged " about48 years, 10. Durjan, S/o Trilochan, aged about 50 years, 11. Mana Ram, S/o Trilochan, aged about 39 years, 12. Rom Nath, S/o Devishankar,aged about 41 years, M. 13. Manher, S/o Virendra, aged about 36 years, :' •1: : : .. ;.••:: • ,• 14. Ashok Singh, S/o Virendra Singli, aged about.23 years, 15. Sudarshan, S/o Lokendra Singh (since deadon 10.09.10), byLegal Representative t5.A,Baidynath, S/o Late Sudarshan, aged about35years, 15.B Smt. Chandrakala, W/o Mohan Singh, D/o Late Sudarshan, aged about 32 years, Both R/o Village Kudalgaon, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 16. Smt. Raitee,W/o Sudarshan, aged about 53 years, All residence of Village Kudalgaon, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 17. State of Chhattisgarh; Through: Collector Bastar at Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ^\ - ^\5'" • ;: '• '.- APPLICAnON UNDER ORDER.rRULE t3- OF THE CQDE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE FOR RESTORATION OF S.A./P.R. N0. 3196/20t0 SiI^T ^il ft;-< '(T^T 3TT^T ^lNr <-' |L \fc) '3~ T'^(FIRT^,'^ft'OT^, fs<diylj,< .£l:.^.L..nl/Jl. ^?I TPRT (^pf^S^) ^itRIT ^itti St^S! S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prash^ 18.02.2011. Shri R.N. Jha, counsel fortHe Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panfel Heard on I.A. No.1 for cpndlmation On due consideration, I.A. N Heard learned counsel for th This is an application for| No.3196/2010 which was dismissejd on 30/11/2010. The reasons assigned fpr found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the M.C.C. is a| Second Appeal (PR) No.3 number. .L 'ShTtrf^raN '??TT^ff ^ t^st <r^l^H ^aiRnsn^r nt Kumar Wlishra applicant. in^l Lawyer for the State. ofdelay. |o. 1 is altowed. )e applicant. restoration of Second Appeal (PR) for want of prosecution by this Court d^fault in appearance is considered and llowed. 1196/2010 is restored to ite original Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge