INJ-HEJjlGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUg CHHATTISGARH TW n/i.c.c. No. / 2011 Oivision Ben^ ^ APPLICANT .1!,-^ ^'\\V^'f^>'"\. ^ 1><^-^^ .••••"-.>nl\.-'"" ^.'•"' ^^ 0^°" O' Tribhuvan Kose S/o Shobha Karn, aged about 37 years, Caslo Dhimar R/o Q No. 01 ward no.13, Khorpa, Sheetalpara, Nagar Panchayat Patan Tah Patan Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Salik Ram Vishvakarma, S/o 1. Sonsaya Vishvakarma, aged about 46 years R/o Hat Krishna Millar Khadan Chunkatta Village Mudahipar PS Utai Tah. PalE;in Distt. Durg (CG). Shiv Dev Singh Kalkar S/o 2, Ranjeet Sigh Kalkar aged about ' 36 years R/o 165/3 VIP Nagar Rishali Bhilai PS Newai Tah. And Distt. Durg (CG). 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance '•'' Company Limited Unit no. 304- 306, third floor, Lalganga Shoping Mall, Ravishankar Unit, GE Road, Raipur Tah. And Distt. Raipur (CG). , APPLICATION FOR RESTORATIONOF APPEAL N0. MAC 670/2009 ':'^~<;:!%.l .tsw'ri'^, ^ s^ '^ £^ gi ^3^. " ^ I Mi<A vl \kJL& IBS:5%r^Ki HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. M.C.C.No. 548 of 2011 Applicant Respondents Tribhuvan Kose, s/o Shobha Ram aged about 37 years, Caste Dhimar, R/o Q No. 01 Ward No.13, Khopra, Sheetalpara, Nagar Panchayat Patan Tah Patan Distt Durg (CG) VERSUS Salik Ram Vishvakarma, s/o Sonsaya Vishvakarma, aged about 46 years, r/o Hal Krishna Millar Khadan Chunkatta Village Mudahipar PS Utai Tah patan distt Durg (CG) Shiv Dev Singh Kalkar, s/o Ranjeet Singh Kalkar, aged about 36 years, r/o 165/3 VIP Nagar Rishali Bhilai, PS Newai Tah and Distt Durg (CG) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Unit No.304-306, Third Floor, Lalganga Shopping Mall Ravishankar Unit, GE Road, Raipur Tah and Distt Raipur (CG) Application for restoration of M.A.C. No. 670/2009 Present: Shri Vipin Tiwari, counse! for the petitioner. <i'TI ORDER (19th August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupfa, C.J. MCCNo.548of2011 v\ <^ Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the restoration petition. 2) The petitioner is seeking restoration of M.A.C.No.670 of 2009, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 06.07.2011. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitioner's/appellant's counsel on 06.07.2011, when M.A.C.No.670 of 2009 was taken-up for hearing, was based on bona fide grounds. 4). M.C.C. No. 548 of 2011, therefore, is allowed and M.A.C. No.670 of 2009 is restored to its original number.,_ Sd/- ChiefJusdce subbu Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge