'^^-\}-u"^&'^<A.f-o'<iA/u'^rfA^'>.i^^ -. ..' <-^ INTHEHK5H iW M.C.C.N03>^0 <Arisffi9<nitofSANo.477C»;1996") APPUCANT fiFFBlMft Kewal Charel Sfe EteyatDas : 55^^^^^^afs,oe»yj^Son—business, resideRtofneaFARiaFd^pTalldes, Raipur (GG). VERSUS NO APPVCAMTS: I.Strt. tCtenGu^tWdfotate ShyH.P.Gupta RESPODNENTS 2.Vft^/taan<iGu|rtaSfoi-ateShriM.PX5upta, 3. KuRiaEiAEmttaGuUAEKsLateSltR 4< BRPra^iElOtflrtaSAtShFt ^.••-•.:•..•>1^^::';-.;';'^ i^s:jSho^IM3.,^|^[;< ARres(dart^tfflil^^a; @ar, Bata (3^, REBpw, T^silantiSis&KrtI^urlCG). WB^d-talWB^^^USSMT. HC »-E,tt®nE^ ^ ^•.. uo ^t^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mjshra, J. APPLICANT M.C.C.No. 320 of2007 Kewai Chand. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Kiran Gupta and others. Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the appiicant. Following oral order M. Quddusi. J. ORAL ORDER (25/04/2011) of the Court was passed by This is an application for restoration of the Second Appeal No. 477/1996. The appeal was dismissed in default with the obsen/ation that the rent was not being deposited by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rent was being deposited regularly in this Court but the respondents had refused to accept the rentand on the daywhen the appeal had come up for hearing and the counsel for the appellant was busy in another Court. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be restored to iteorigtfial number. Therefore, M.C.C. is allowed and the appeal is restored.to its original^iumber. Certified copy today. -'<. . • ?, . SdA I.M.Quddusi ~ Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ~Ti