\ '^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGAIWATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE 8HRI RAJEEVX3UPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. M^^.No.324or20( Applicant The Oriental Insurance Company Appellant Umitea.through : DMstonalNanager, Division OfNce, In front of High Court, Bilaspur(CG) VERSUS Non-Appllcants 1. Ulavati WJfe of Lat Samay Lal, Respondents aged42years 2. Ramnaresh Shahu Son of Lat. Samay Lal, aged 25 years; 3. Ramkaran Shahu Son of Lat. Samay Lal, aged 20 years 4. Sangeeta Shahu Wtt®of Ramnaresh Shahu, aged aboyt23 years; 5. Deepak Kumar Son of Ramnare^i Shahu, aged about 07 years; 6. Ku.Mamta D/o Ramnaresh Shahu, aged aboutOSyears; 7. Ku. Pritea D/o Ramnaresh Shahu, aged about 03 years; (Respondents No.5 to 7 minprs through Mother Sangeeta respondent No,4) 8. Laxandhari Son of Lat. Dhaneshar Sahu, aged about 62 years; 9. Rajkumari Wife of La^ndhari, aged about57years All residents of Bhayathan Road, Surajpur, Thana and Tahsil Sur^pur; District Surajpur (CG) 10 Shiva Rajwacte @8hlvnarayan Son of Amarsai, aged about 27 yeare, Driver, Resideht of VSHage Agaustpur, Thana ?^imte, ;k ^\ bt ^- ^ and Tahsil Surajpur, Dlstrict 8ura|pur 11 Ashok Kumar Shahu Son of Rambharosh Shahu, aged about 32 years, Kabadi, resident of Pyrana Bajar Para, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CQ) ApDlication for re^oration ofM.A. No.84S/2TOS Present: Shri Ajay Mishra, leamed counsel forthe petttioner. ORDER (31st August, 2009) The following order of ttie Court was ps@sed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Ajay Mishra, leamed counsel for the petftloner Is h^ird on I.A.No.01/2009, an applteation for condonation ofthedelayin flljng the restoration petitfon. 2) On due consideration, we are sattefled that the petttloner has succeeded in shoNng sufflcient cause for the delay in fiUng the restoration petition. 3) I.A.No.01/2009, therefore, is aUowed and the dela^ in flUng the restoration petition is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the petttloner Is heard on the restoration petition. 5) The petiUoner is seeking restoration of M.A.No.9^/2008, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 06.03.2009. 6)- On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satlsfied that the absence of the \^bu ;t. ^" petjtioner's/appellant's counsel on 06.03.2009 when M.A. No. 94S/2005 was tateen-up for hearing w^ based on bona fide grounds. 7) M.C.C.No.324/2009, therefore, is allowed and N.A. No.945/2005 is restored to its origtnal nur Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^.