^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH^BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 401 of 2008 APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Pooran, S/o Daya Sahu, Aged about 58 years 2. Smt Hem Bai, W/o Pooran Sahu, Aged about Not Known, Both Cultivators and resident of Village Keotara, Tahsil Shaja, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Prema Bai, Wd/o Daya Sahu, R/o Jamul, Tahsil 85 District Durg C.G. 2. Smt. Mankunwar Bai, W/o Bhurwa Sahu R/o Village Parsoda, Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Jankunwar Bai, W/o Bhagwandas Sahu, R/o Village Sankara, at Present resident at Rawanbhatha,- Jamul, Tahsil 85 District Durg 4. The State c-f C.G. Through Collector Durg (C.G.) Appearance : Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the applicants. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for rcspondents No.. 1 to 3. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER 129.01.20091 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. They are heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2008, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the restoration application has been successfully explained by the applicants. It appears that after transfer of the case from the High Court Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur to this Court only SPCs were //^ ~\ iflBBal 1 ^^^^;ljl 1 ^. %^v./ M^C.C.No. 401 of2008 issued and in absence of representation after issuance of such SPCs, the revision petition was dismissed. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2008 is allowed and delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. CUt^ Learned counsel for the parties/also heard on M.C.C. No. 401 of 2008, which is an application for restoration of Civil Revision No. 871/2000, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 29.6.2005. Since after transfer^the case from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, no appearance on behalf of the applicants was made before this Court, fhis Court directed for issuance of SPCs to counsel for the applicants as also to the applicants for a date to be fixed by the office. In compliance of the aforesaid order, SPCs were issued. Even after issua-nce of the SPCs, when the parties did not cause their appearance before this Court, the Civil Revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the SPCs were not sei-ved on the applicants, therefore, they could not caused their appearance on the said date. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the absence of the applicants or their counsel on 29.6.2005 has been sufficiently explained by them and it was bonafide. Accordingly, M.C.C. No. 401/2008 is allowed and the Civil Revision No. 871/2000 is restored to its original number. M.C.C. No. 401/2008 is disposed of. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha judge vattl