IN THE HON'BLEJlIGiiCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BttASPUR f C.G.1 ®©net- M. C. C. N0. ^l QF 2011 ^ APPELLANTS o ,»S*?'' >r'-l~'i'1 ^^^^ pt63®'1''...^--"" 08.''.®*"'" ^ :1. Ishwar Lal S/o Bhagoliram, aged about syyears. 2. Fatkan Bai W/o Shri Ishwar lal, aged about 52 Years. 3. Smt. Anshu Bai W/o. Late Shri Deonatrayan, aged about 25 4. Years. •V Ravikumar @ Monu S/o. Late Shri Deonalfrayan, aged about 7 Years. v Neeraj @ Ballci.S/o. Late Shri Deonatrayan, aged about 5 Years. Applicant No. 4 and 5 are minor, through their Natural Guardian Mother Smt Anshu Bai W/o. Late Shri Deonajn-ayan, All are r/^'Village Pathridih, Post - Kukrel, Tahsil and Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ lie VERSUS RESPONDENTS Pawan S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sahu, aged about 30 Years, R/o. Stationpara Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt.- Dhamtari ( C.G.) Branch Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, behind Amar Talkies Balak Chowk Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) L__ APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OFTHE M. A.C.No. 1402/2009 WHICH IS DISMISS IN DEFAULT FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION ON 20.07.2011. HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants NICCNo.687of2011 1. Ishwar Lal, s/o Bhagoliram, aged about 55 years 2. Fatkan Bai, W/o Shri Ishwar Lal, aged about 52 years 3. Smt Anshu Bai, w/o late Shri Deonarayan, aged about 25 years 4. Ravikumar @ Monu S/o late Shri Deonarayan, aged about 7 years 5. Neeraj @ Balla, s/o late Shri Deonarayan, aged about 5 years Applicant No.4 and 5 are minor, through their natural guardian mother Smt Anshu Bai, w/o late Shri Deonarayan All are r/o village Pathridih, Post - Kukrel, Tahsil and Distt - Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS Respondents 1 Pawan s/o Shri Shyam Lal Sahu, aged about 30 years, r/o Stationpara Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt Dhamtari (CG) 2 Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, behind Amar Talkies Balak Chowk Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (CG) •t- ADDlication for restoration of MAC No.1402/2009 Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. ORDER (30tn September,2011) "<- I \\ ^^.....^".,';sy •-y^'" ./^ MCCNo.687 of 2011 The following order of the Couri: was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners is heard on IA No.1/2011, a petition for condonation ofthe delay in filing the restoration petition. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioners have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration petition. 3) IA No.1/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the restoration petition is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners is heard on the restoration petition. 5) The petitioners are seeking restoration of M.A.C. No.1402 of 2009 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20,07.2011. 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitionersV appellants' counsel on 20.07.2011, when M.A.C.No.1402 of 2009 was taken up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds. 7) M.C.C. No. 687 of 2011, therefore, is allowed and M.A.C. No.1402 of 2009 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Chief^Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge