HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D8VISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON;BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUiViAR SSNHA, J. Applicants Appellants Claimants M.C.C.No. 254 of 2009. 1) Jagdish Sonkar, S/o Kandhi Sonkar, aged about 47 years 2) Smt Durga Sonkar W/o Jagdish Sonkar, aged about 40 years 3) Suresh Sonkar, Jagdish Sonkar, aged about 21 years 4) Mahsh Sonkar, S/o Jagdish Sonkar, aged about 19years All residents of Benia Dafai, West Chirmiri Coiliery, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Dlstrict Korea (CG) Non-apDllcants 1) Respondent No.1 Non-applicant No.1 Non-applicanfs 2) Respondent No.2 Non-applicant No.2 Non-apDllcants 3) Respondent No.3 Non-applicant No.3 Non-aDDStcants 4) Respondent No.4 Non-applicant No.4 VERSUS Mohd Aslam, S/o Mohd Hafiz aged about 34 years,0ccupation - Driver, Resident of 10 Madrtalla Line, Polkhana, Police Station Goiabadi District Howrah (West Bengal) Surendra Pal Singh, S/o Indrajeet Singh, aged about not known, Truck Owner Resident of 139 Narkail, Danga Main Road, Calcutta (West Bengal) The New India Insurance Company Limited DO 16 Lenin Sarni, Calcutta, 700013, Mulali, West Bengal Smt Kholbaharin Widow of Late Kholbahra, aged about 59 years, Residetn of 96 Number Dafai West Chirimiri, Police Station, Podi District Korea (CG) ApDlication for restoration of MA No.241/2008 Present: Ms. Tripti Dewangan, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.3. K.1 ^H»WKh \t. ORDER (20thJuly, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2009, an appiication for condonation of the delay in filing the restoration petition. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioners have succeeded in showing sufficient cause forthe delay in filing the restoration petition. 3. I.A.No.01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay of seven days in filing the restoration petition is hereby condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the partiesare heard on the restoration petition. 5. The petitioners are seeking restoration of M.A. No. 241/2005, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 11.05.2009. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the restoration petitlon, we are satisfied that the absence of the petltionersV appellants' counsel on 11-05-2009 when M.A.No.241/2005 was taken up for hearing, was based on bona fide grounds. 7,, M.C.C. No.254/2009, therefore, is allowed and M.A. No.241/2005 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha judge .\^ ^^.