0\ I'BL E^ESS !NHA. >LiCAIk ^ 2. 4. Dev Slngh Son of Nohar Singh, a? about 68 years; Lat Singh Son of Dev Singh, age; about 53 years; Nem Singh Son of Dev Singh, age( 5-i La!en Singh Son of Dev Singh, aged about 48 vears; Prem Singh Son of Dev Singh, aged 5v< Karan Singh Son of Dev Singh, aged about 33 years; Ail resident of Village Manpur (Bemetara), Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) >j~. 1. Sudershan Son of Rajaram, aged ibout 39 years; 2. Sirrnoutin Bai D/o Rajaram, aged ssn yai about 47 years; §oth resident of Village Pikari (Bemetara), Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Bahal Singh Son of Rajaram, aged about 46 years; BB Dukaihin Bai widow of Rajaram, aged about 64 years; Both resident of Viilage Manpur (Bemetara), Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, throui Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G. ^B Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel fort'ne applicants. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for Respondent No. 5 / State. rth The foiiowins order of the Court was pas Heard iearned counsei for the parties on I.A. No. 1 appSicatlon for condonation of delay sn fiting the restoration petition). 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned appiication counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the for condonation of deiay, we are satisfied that the app' iucceeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay restoration petition. the 3. Therefore, l.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay in fiilng th< restoration petition is hereby condoned. c: 4. Learned counsel for the parties are he; stora' BeUtioi 5. The appticants are seeking restoration of M.A. No, 97/2003 whic'n c.ame to be dismissed on account of the non-compiiance bythe gppeliants ofthe orcler dated 11-02-2003. 6. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel fort'ne applicants submits that though the appellants could not deposit the process fee iA/ithin th^ n^rififi of np>?& w^?sk ^tiniil^tsd in th^ ordpr d^tffi'? .Ui3i i.liS« tu(i5?i!UU Wi Uii'C; Vl?^;OEX •Si(,3.{u^Ulit.<i.'<~'i" SSi S.ii^S 'Lii'i'^ifld *u<dt. 11-H9-'9HH'^ th^ Dmr;^?ss; fp»?s v./^% in f??r.t n^iri rsn l'h?s plnhth rl?iv nf g i '"\</-^i'^^<^^^'^ ^ ti i^ ^l '^^'^?'^?0 i <^^ ¥y^.'n? lit i 1 Ci^-?^. ^J'^t^-fl J^! i ^U^ ^'l^ 3 311,5 the passlng ofthe orderdated 11-02-2003. 7. On due consideration, M.C.C. No.146/2008 is allowed and M.A. No.97/2003 is restored to its oriainal number, but without the 'iari['r^ "^\[^f H ii.e;; '.:'.'. i 'C' iijw;;. Th.° • s^ appllcants/ appetlants shali, however, be at iiberty to ippiy afresh for grant of interii r'.nr'^sdpr^d nn 11% nv.,?n m^iri ~''l-/s s^i'-u^di'CT'W ^i 1 j L-S ^f'i'lt 3 ; ;C;US.O. \ Sd/- .\Chief Justice relief and the same ohall be Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge s'jbbu