HIGH COURT OF CHHAmsGARm BILAsPUR Mcc No.561]2:007 Chandra $en Rathom, son of Shn Banmlal Rathoxe resuient - ‘ of RathOIje Chow Jahar Nagar Ralpur aS ndA Dlstnct Ralpur :1 Verbus § s RaJendra {Kumar Rathore aed about 45 years Om Prakash Rathore, aged about}? 40 years (C G) 'S‘ 1’ RESPONDENT; _ Both sons of Shn Laxmmamyan ¥ Rathore res1dent of Rathom- ' Chowk Ramsagarpara,. Ralpu, -Ta_hsll and Dlsmct Ralpur " 3(a) Smt Anandibm aged. about 85 years, Wldow of Late Sunderlal w _ Rathore, Rathore Chowk Jawahar‘ ’ ‘ Nagar Ra1pur, Tahs11 and Dlstnct ' Ra1pur ‘ r ‘ f / rSmt Shanhbm, aged about 55 yeam, w1fe ‘ of Dr Ramkxsan ‘ ‘Rathore ‘ Smt. Savitii Baa; aged about so ' ears, Wife, of Shri Dayaram Rathore‘ ’ " ‘ ' y ‘ d) Smt Sumltrabal aged about 4S ' ' “years, w1fe of Shn Beneand: . Rafhore Non—apphcants No3 (b) to 3 (d)'_ am daughters of Late Sundaqal Rathore Care of Smt Anand1ba1, w1dow of Late Sunderlal Rathom .res1dent of Rathore " Chowk . l alpur Tahs11 and D1s111ct Ralpu ‘ ' APPuqANT k aw ThII a- g r ' ‘ ( 3 ch_ g R r ,r’ i cc No.561/2007 J APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION 0? TIME Appearance Shn Sh1t1] Shanna Counsel for the apphcant. ORAL ommh (13 2 2008’ . ‘ € % 8mm. KUMAR smHA, J. Heafd. This MCC has been $ed’fo'r directing the Registty of this Court to provide the cm Lilied copy of the impugned oxder dated 25/6] 1998 annexed m cwn Remlon No 21 14/ 98 as per order dated O8 O4 2005 passed m the aforesald C1v11 Rev1s1on Learned counsel ior the apphcapt submlts that thls Court had directed in the said Order thatE the certihed copy of the impugned order be returned to the counsel for the applicant after retaining the photocopy of the same, ifdemanded,withjn 15 days from 08.04.2005, but since the Counsel was changed, the order could not be demanded within 15 days, therefore, it is still lying in the records of Civil Revision No.2114/98. He submits that after receiving the certiiied copy of the impugned order, the L pplicant intends to avail appropriate remedy under the law as per the directions of this Court in the Civil Revision. I do not dud any substance in‘the arguments advanced by learned counsel ior the appllcant The 1mpugned order dated 25/ 6/ 1998 of the aforesaid Civxl ev1s1on was passed 1n (nvd Suit No.37—A/ 97 by the Thmi dditional Disuict Judge to the Court of District Judge; Raipur. If the applicant could not obtain the cert‘died copy of the impugned order in time, as per the direction issued by this Court, he can obtain another copy of the impugned order dom the Court of the Additional District Judge itself and may proceed to avail “a / Sdl- sunil Kamar Sinha l l - Judge appropriate remedy under the law V w c p The MCC 1s acordingly disosed of. l l Shyna M ® r a R A