A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi SUNJL KUMAR S1NHA, J. Applicant MCCNo. 208 of 2010 Kedarnath Agrawal, aged about 48 years, S/o Nagarma! Agravi/at, R/o Bilha Tahsil Bilha, Distt Bilaspur At present R/o Q No. MIG 11 (ESeven), Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nagar, NTPC Jamnjpaii, Distt. Korba INI Respondents VERSUS 1 Md Yunus, aged about 32 years, S/o Abdu! Haneem R/o Chatidih, Near Masjid, Distt Bilaspur 2 Naresh Kumar Madhwani, aged about 23 years, S/o Harikishan Madhv/ani, Prop. Uttam Enterprises, 3, Khalsa School compound, PandrS Road, Raipur (Owner of Medador No.MOT 9039 Distt Raipur. 3 M/s Oriental insurance Co. Through it Manage City Branch GE Road, Distt Raipur 4 Smt Lajwanti, aged about not known W/o Harikjshan Madhwani, Prop : Director Uttam Enterprises, 3, Khalsa School Compound, Pandri Road, Raipur (Owner of Metador No. MOT 9039 Distt Raipur 5 Udhomal S/o Dharmumal Sindhi, Owner of Taxi, No.MIL 6144, Biha Tahsil Bilha Distt Bilaspur 6 Kanhaiyalal S/o Chandmal, Driver Tempo No.MIL 6144, PO Chakar Bhati, DisttBilaspur 7 National Insurance Co. Branch Offlce, Tarbahar Naka Bilaspur ^—^ ..^•^sxs^, • 8 ^^ APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, leamed counsel forthe petitioner. ORDER (19th Apri!, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Parag Kotecha, leamed counsel for the petitioner is heardon IA No. 1/2010, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the restoration petition. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken In the application, we are satisfled that the petitioner has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in flling the restoration petition. 3) IA No.1/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing restoration petition is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the restoration petition. 5) The petitioner is seeking restoration of M.A. No.921/1996 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide orderdated 26.02.2007. 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitioner's/ appellant's counsel on 26.02.2007, when M.A. No.921/1996 was taken up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds. ^:€-Y ~^Ti I* subbu 7) MCC No. 208/2010, therefore, is allowed and M.A. No.921/1996 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge