^:^^:.: HSGH COURT OF CHHATT5SGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON5BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNSL KUMAR SINHA & HQN'BLE Mr. JUSTSCE NAWAL KiSHORE AGRAWAL APPLSCAMT RESPONDENTS MCC N0.763 of 2011 Durg Transport Company Through Managing DJrector, Prakash Deshiahra, S/o Late Shri Phoo! Chand Deshiahra Aged 56 years, Adarsh Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Bhopai (M.P.) 2 The Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur 3 The Coilector, District Durg 4 The Nazu! Officer, District Durg APPL3CATION FOR RESTORATION Appearance: Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Counse! for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ORAL ORDER (11.11.2011) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Suni! Kumar Sinha. J. Heardon I.A. No.01. I.A. No.01 is an application for condonatlon of delay in filing the restoration application. Mr. Shrivastava submits that after transfer of this case from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jablapur, notice/S.P.C. ^y,^.^^^ ?^<^ / 'Y ^p- ?"-v ^-T" ^•^^ -^'; IVICC N0.783 of 2011 etc. were not Issued to the appSicant. The matter vvas taken up on 10.03.2005 for the first time and was dismissed for want of prosecution. Even after dismissal, no jnformation was given to the appiicant. On the above submlsslons, we are satisfied that the applicant has shown suffident cause for not fiiing the MCC In time and the delay in fiiing the MCC desewes to be condcned. Accordingly, I.A. No.01 Is allowed and the deiay in fiiing the MCC is hereby condoned. Heard on the MCC/restoratlon appiication. The appiicant is seeking restoration ofW.P.No.1182/1993, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.03.2005, as no one appeared on behaif of the appiicant, when the matter was taken up for hearing. Mr. Shrivastava submits that initially the matter was fiied in the Hjgh Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabaipur in the year 1993. After reorganization, the matter was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh and wastaken up forthe first time on 10.03.2005 and was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared on behaif of the appiicant. His submission Is that the appiicant was not informed about the date of hearing and the counsel engaged, who usuafiy was visitsng to Bl!aspur, did not appear on the said date and the matter was dEsmissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that after dismissai, no information was sent to the appiicant. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the applicant has shown sufficient cause for its non-representation on 10.03.2005 and the matter deserves to be restored. in the resuit, the MCC is aliowed and W.P. No.1182/1993 is restored to its orlginal number. I _ ^^_ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge '^