IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.No. ^9^/2006 tfising out of Order dated 21.07.2005j3assed in M.A.No^25/1994 by the Hon'ble Justice ShrYv.K. Shrivastava-J) Ai?£LICANT Sailesh Kumar alias Bablu S/o W.J. Ram Aged about 44 years, R/o Qtr.No.9-A, Stree.t No.41, Sector-7, Bhilai, District-Durg (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS T ..-<^\^v ^^^.-v'" ^•"^' Aas 1)/ Mohd. Ishag, S/o late Kareem ^ ^akhsha, Aged about 59 years, R/o Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 2J, K.J. Joseph, Aged about 58 >, R/o Dr. Soni's House, Akaltara, District-Janjgir- Champa (CG) APPL1CATION FOR RESTORAT10N OF MISC. APPEAL FILED U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT XI-HC-22 3^ "i|l<lld<<, OTflwis, Rirtiuy 3ll^?I M^tft /^.C.c. /^d > /?"?" H11MI Shllth V^ 200 & R<>«d 3I]^T?iT R-ii* sn^r sti>iil> ^Isn ail^l (WTWBf^tT ^ipifepfrrwRifffk^ <RI^K ^sif^irsn^r 21/07^ Shri P. &iwakar, Senior i^dvocate with Shri P.R. Patankar, 692/ counsel for appiicant. None for ropondents. Resp^ This Court vjde order datt |agaii"i3t respondent No. 2 K.J. ^hereafter remains no n-iore par^ ^ppiicant is directed todelete his Heard on M.C.P. No. ^ondonction of deiay. Takiny into consideration Itppiication duiy supported with ^ther parties, I am satisfied w| tufficient cause for not preferrin^ pAisc. appea! No. 325/1994 within KA.C.P. No, 652/2006 is aliowed and| Learned counsei for appli^ pl.7.2005, no one oppears for jsplical'ion for restoration of the Issuance of notice to resDondents. spe^nclen ndent No. 2 is reported to be dead. td 16.4.1996 rejected the oppeai Joseph, therefore, K.J'. Joseph y in the subsequen"!' proceedings. icimc* 2/2006 i.e. an-appiication for the grouncis mentioned in •t+ie olffidavit and not controverted by ith the fact that applicant had the appiication for restoration of the prescribed period, therefore, delay is eondoned. submits ond prays •i+ifit on the respondents, therefore, his a^peai may kindiy be heard without idanT (ifl^yNr) '^y\.c.c. \s^[o_ XI-HC-22 SII^rqiT f^iN;3n^r Stlflqi tlRn * Kvr 3^'^PTIcPT, wrflwKo, Kicuuy 311^1 <45|t»l /n.L.c. hio. i<g~^- 11*IMI StlllW Wi; 200^ sii^i <wrwHli(T Considered. Heard. Taking into considenti'on| appiication duiy supported with af( that when the uppeal was- cali^ preventsd by sufficient causs frs( 187/2006 is aiiowed. Misc. Appeal original number. ttm *io?d41.i KiMcff&'fe'<rl <Ri^eR ^;3lf^IT3n^5T •t+ie grounds mentioned in the •idavi-!-, I am satisfied Wf-ith the fact d out for hearing, uppeliant wos appearing, "therefore, M.C.C. No. No. 325/94 is restored back to its _- ^ ^.: Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge