^ te ^ \!; t. HON'BLE W THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. - ^1^'- (Election Petition No.- 14/20oS?u^ 89^ APPLICANT/ ^PETITIONER SHIVRATAN SHARMA AGED ABOUT 43 YRS, S/0 SHRI RAMDAYAL SHARA, R/0 SUBHASH WARD, BATAPARA, DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.) 1 NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENTS A AVffift\y • ^^^A/ h/ '>\<y u/:^i\y /^r ^ ^ »•' <^~ ^ _y ^' ..' f// 1. > 3. 4., 5. 6. 7. </" ,.8. Vrs. CHAITRAM SAHU AGED ABOUT 53 YRS, S/0 RUNARAM SAHU, R/0 MOPKA BHATAPARA, DIST. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGASH) KHEMDAS TANDAN AGED ABOUT 45 YRS. S/0 NOT KNOWN, R/0 VILLAGE BUDGAHAN POST BHATBHERA, TAHSIL SIMGA, DIST. RAIPUR (CHHATHSGARH) t HARDEEP SINGH @ RAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YRS., S/0 NOT KNOWN, TILDA ROAD, SIMGA, TAHSIL SIMAGA, DIST. RABPUR (CHHATTISGAREI) DEBIN BAI NETAM AGED ABOUT 50 YRS. W/0 NOT KNOWN, WO VILL. LAWAR TAHSIL , SIMGA DIST. RACPUR (CHHATTISGARH) BHAGAT RAM AGED ABOUT 40 YRS., S/0 )NOT KNOWN. R/0 VILLAGE CHAKARVAY, POST DAMAKHEDA, TAHSIL SIMGH, DIST. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) RADHELAL AADIL AGED ABOUT 53 YRS. S/ O NOT KNOWN, R/0 VILLAGE & POST DATRENGI, TAHSIL BHATAPARA, DIST. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) MOHAN DHIKDA AGED ABOUT 40 YRS., S/0 NOT KNOWN, R/0 VILLAGE KUKRACHUNDA, POST MOHBHATTA, DIST. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) VIDESHI TANDAN AGED ABOUT 70 YRS. S/0 VILLAGE SENDERI, POST BHATAPARA DIST. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) APPLICATION FQR SETTING ASIDE THE DISMISSAL ORDERDATED 06*^2006 PASSED BY HON'BLE JUSTICE XI-HC-22 \":. a-n^r ^ir f^-iNrsn^T BITRiffRtT tl 11 C1T 50*1 ich 3 T •<! 1-41C1<q, aTfl+1'16, fslCIKiy .s^>^ •^- 2tfiB al ^v^ 3TI^T STdTW Hfid' 18.08.2006 Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsjel for the applicant. None appears for the non-i Heard on I.A. No. 2431/20p6. This is an application for disposal of the case finally in absence of non' On 6-7-2006. this Court dismissed the Election Petition N|a. 14/2004, therefore, without issuance of notices to the non-applicants aside and the election petition is <til<lli1<n-f ITOrff fffe^ rfSRZTC ^; aif^iT sn^T pplicants. applicants. in absence of both the parties had the application ifor restoration of the election petition can be heard a(id decided in cohformity with Order 9 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Therefore, I.A. h?o. 2431/2006 is allowed. Heard on M.C.C. No. 397/2p06. The averments in the a^plication have been supported by an affidavit. For absence of the p^titioner, the responsibilities have been fastened on the counsel. Tnking into consideration fhe grounds raised in the petition dully supported by affidavit, I am sa^isfied thcct there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the petiti^ner on 6-7-2006. Therefore, the order passed bythis Court- on 6-7-200^ in Election Petition No. 14/2004 is set estored to its original number. M.C.C. No. 397/2006 stancjs disposed of. In view of the above ord4r, I.A. No. 2432/20)6, application for early hearing st-ands disposed of. Sd/- V.K.Slirivastava Judge il-^^- v^ • '^