^'•8 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HpN'BLESHRIRAJEEV©UPTA,ej& HjON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. APPLICANTS PLAINTiFFS I..C.C.No.1366f2007 5. 6. 7. 8. Sukhnath S/o Lekhanram Koshta, ^ed dsout 42 years, Service, R/o Village Kondagaon, Post- Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar, M.P. (Now C.G.) Shambhunath, S/o Lekhram Koshta, Aycdabout 30 years, R/o Vitlage Kondagaon, Post, Tehsil— Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar. Lalita Bai, Wd/o Lekhram, Aged about 66 years, Caste Koshta. Ratnibai, W/o Roopsingh Koshta, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village Jagdalpur, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, M.P. (Now C.G.) Manki Bai, W/o Meghnath Kosta, Aged 41 years, R/o Wlage Kondagaon, Tehsil-Kondagaon, Distt.Bastar, M.P. (Now C.G.) Shanti Bai, W/o Laxman Koshta, Aged 34 years,7 F-anfter; Wo Vijlage Kondagaon, Tehsil- Kondagaon,Distt. Bastar. Ku. Krantibai, daughter Laxman Roshta, aged 27 yeare, Farmer, R/o Village Kondagaon, Tehsil- Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar. Amti Bai, W/o ©anesh Koshta, aged 24 yeaFS, R/o Viltage- Narayanpur, Distt. Baster (M.P.) (NowC.G.) VERSUS '•s RESPONDENTS 1. Ganesh Ram, W/o Ramsingh, .D.E.FEN.DANTS Caste Koshta, aged 50 years, Teacher, Education Departemt, 2. Mohan Singh, S/o Mangalram Koshta, aged 43 years, Fanner. 3. Sukmani Bai, W/o Marilal Koshta, aged 41 years, Farmer. No. 1 to 3 R/o Viltage-Post Kondagaon, Tehsil Kondagaon, District Bastar, (M.P.)(NowC.G.) 4. Premsingh, S/o Mangatram Kosta, aged 38 years, Service (State Bank Jagdalpur), R/o Village Jagdalpur, Dlstt. Bastar. 5. State of M.P.-through Collector, Bastar, Place Jagdatpur, Bastar (MP) (Now C.G.) ApDlication under Order 41 Rute 19 of C.P.C. for restoration ofthe Civil Revision No.1529/1897Disnaissed vide order dated 27.06.2005 for want of Prosecutlon Presenf: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the applicants. < Shri M.P.S. Bhatla, learned Deputy QO'gtTAdvbcate for the State/ respondents No. 5. Shri V.A. Goverdhan, tearned counsel fbr respondents No. 1 to 4 ORDER rth {0?m March, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. t Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1/2007 (application for condonatlon of delay in filing the restoration petition). 2. On due consideration of the submisstons of teamed counsel for the parties,we are satisfied that the appticants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration petition. 3. Therefore, I.A. No.01/2007 is allowed and the delay in flling the restoration petition is hereby condoned; 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on M.C.C. No.136/2007. 5. The applicants are seekfng restoration of Civll Revision No.1529/1997 whlch was dismissed for non-appearance, vide order dated 27.06.2005. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of learned ^ , counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the-ateence 6f the applicants' counsel on 27.06.2005 when Civit Revision v '• No.1529/1997 was taken up-^or hearing, was based on bona fiele grounds. 7. Therefore, M.C.C. No.136/2007 is allowed and Civil Revision No.1529/1997 is restored to its orlginat number, but without interim relief. J--—— 4 8. The applicants, however, shatl be at liberty to file a fresh application for grant of interim relief and the same shatl be considered on its own merits. ^ — Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Bhirendra Mishra Judge subbu ^" ^.-.