HIGHCOURT OFJUDICATURECHHATriSGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHTO JAGDISH BHM.LA, Ag.CJ Writ PetiUon (Cl No.4574 of 2006 PBTITIONER PLAINTIFF Smt. Sharda W/o Kalindar Shgh, Aged about 32 yeare, Caste Rajput, R/o Vlllage Sonarpara P.0. Bharvah, Distt Koraput (Orrisa) VERSUS ^r RESPONDENTS DEFENDANT DEFENDANTN05 DEFENDANT N0.3 DEFENDANT N0^ DEFENDANT N0.5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. DEFENDANT N0,6 DEFENDANT N0.1 6. 7(a) (b) (c) (d) 8. Smt. Shashi Parihar W/o Manohar Singh, aged about 38 years, Caste Rajput, R/o Vtllage Kasavahi, P.S. & Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kant<er(C.G.) BriJlalSir^h S/o Bisahu Singh Parihar, caste Rajput, Aged about 67 years, R/o Village Batiegon, P.0. Lilejhar, P.S. & Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Smt. Geeta Bai Wd/o Chhabilat Parihar, aged about 62 years, R/o Village K^htaal, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Nem Slngh @ Nanlal Singh Parihar Aged Etoout (42) 62 yeare, R/o Village Khallari, Tahsil Vishrampuri (Keskal), Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Jagmohan Singh Parihar, S/o Chhabilal Sirgh Parihar, Caste Rajput, ^ed about 35 years R/o Viltage Dokala, P.S. & Tahsil Charama, Distt.Kanker (C.G.) Smt. Rukmani @ Sukbati D/o Blsahu Sahu, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Near Santoshi Mandir, Bhanupratappur, Distt Kanker (C.G.) Duryodhan Singh, S/o Vjkram Singh caste Rajput, aged about 50 years, RA) VMage Dodki, Forest guard poltee Chowki, Dstt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Manohar Singh, S/o Late Vikram Singh Rajput, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Kasavahi, P.S. Charama Distt Kanker (C:G-) _ \. . _. Uttan Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh, caste Rajput, aged about 18 years, R/o Santoshi Mandir Raipur (C.G.) Jairam Singh Parihar S/o Late Vikram Singh Parihar, caste Rajput aged 35 years, R/o Village Khursitikul, Post Dangad, P.S. Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh Through Collector, Kanker (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India '..•c- '^ e, t4^ Present; Shri D.N. PFajapati, counaet for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 7(b). ORALORDER (Passed on 12" July, 2007) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that he was a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 79-A/96 and on 28-11-2002 plaintlfFs counset could not appear before the Trial Court therefore the case was dlsmissed Tor d^ault. Then plalntiff/petitloner moved an application for restoratlon on 02-12-2002. The triat Court after hearing restored the matter to its original nunAer. A^rieved by the said order the defendants filed an appeal before the Dlstrlct Judge which was transferred to Additionat District Judge, Kanker. Learned counsel for the petittoner has raised a preliminary objection that there is no provislon of appeaf and the appeal daes not tle agalnst the impugned order crf restoration. Under order XLIII Rule 1 (c) an appealcan be flled but it cannot be filed against the order of restoration. Counsel for the responderrts fairiy agreed with the propositton. Therefore, the order passed t^^>hw^ on merit by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Accordingty, the'order is set-aside and the writ petltionja allowed. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice