C—78 311^1 ?il h-V'h ^f\ ;s^[ sh*ii<ti T 3W? "41'41^-M, iSTd^'IS, (°l<?iiyy *11*1dl **<!* ....(iA.CC.41.^......................WI. 200<^ an^?r'q^q; (1pf^^i) TOIRFt ^lftff SII^I APPLICANT: -Veifeus- RESPONDENT: Non-applicant (ApDlication for restor Division Bench: - Hon'bleShri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'bie Shri T.P. Sharma. JJ. 8^-2008:- Shri A.S. Iqbal, counsel fo Heard on admission. This MCC has been filed M.A. No.972/2004. <ft)*lTf1«iil *11*1<?lf ^f.fs^ <Pq*$l<, ^sifin aii^i Teeju Ram, S/o Makhan Ram Yadav, Aged about 24 years, R/Q Viltage Duwartara, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.) Awadh Ram, S/o Ganesh Ram, Age about 32 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Ch'nuiya, Thana Pithora, Tahsil Gariyabandh, District Raipur (C.G.) Man Singh, S/o Baiga, R/o Rani Partewa, Tahsil Gariyabandh, District Raipur (C.G.) * The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kachahari Chowk, Madina Manjil, Raipur, District Raipur. rtion ofthe Miscellaneous Appeal) r the appltoant. on behalf of Teeju Ram for restoratjon of HC—78 311^1W R-fi* '3V S^S sniro 3:EST ^|*|lcli<4, »T(1'y'i<o,lsi<ii*fy inwff **<i* Wl^ 200 an^?r vsv (^S^fi) l^dlWdfet 311^1 _-A- cdunsel On 1-11-2004, tearned to remove the defaults pointed) weeks' time was allowed. Thel defaults are not removed withil dismissed automatically without| defects were not cured withiit dismissed automatically. Now, 10-3-2008. As per the officer6p|ort, application. As per the provisicjns applicant is requiredto satisly th| preferring an application within order to show sufficient cause ff the applicant has to explain the d( It has been mentioned in there is delay of 213 days in filinb pf 1195 days. !t has further toughest time of his life at preserp the period of iimitation. Being a he made contact to his counsel, the limitation and then he filed was represented by an Advocat about the Drovisions of !aw. Oiti passed in the presence of learn< that if the defaults are not cui automatically, without reference ..-"--^'-'•'•s*'^'''^".•=•' 'blfidl'l'f iifnl4 fe^ <fa«;i< i? affilH 3D^r forthe applicant herein was ailowed out by Registry, as prayed for and two peremptory order was passed that if the the stipulated time, the appeat shall be further reference to the Bench. As the the stipulated time, the appeal stood this MCC for restoration has been filed on t, there is delay of 1195 days in filing this of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the ^ Court that he has sufficient cause for not >uch period and as per the settled law, in (>r not filingapplicatjon within such period, i^lay of each day. ' application for condonation of delay ttiat this apptication whereas, in fact, delay is ^en mentioned that the appellant is facing ^L days, he was having no knowledge about ^iyman and also about its importance, when ^hen only he knew about the provisions of i|istant appeal in this Cpurt. The applicant i^ and the Advocate was very well aware 1-11-2004, when peremptory order was s|d counsel for the appellant, he was aware i|ed, then the appeal shall be dismissed ito the Court. Learned counsel for the Tie lin|' b^en ld rf'*'»-t HC—78 3^? '<ii<ii<'><<,®Tn<i'i(o,Rii'iiy^'i. ^Wv{[ *t<|cb""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""W^ 200 an^?r iraq; (lyt-jsiijti) sii^i ?ff R-fi'* TT^T 3Ti^?r ^TRT Barve 'renw ^ifta SII^T •3 app qe applicant was aware that fron'1 applicant was represented by knowing limitation law by the applicant for condonation of condonationof delay. For the foregoing reason^ is liable to be dismissed and it itse!f-—'—, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge that day limitation will start. When the ^n Advocate, then there is no question of licant, therefore, the apptication filed bythe 'lay does not reflect sufficient cause for ^)l<<t<f<l1l iTR^f ^,f%^ <f<»|-^l< ^SJfiPT 311^1 >, we are of the opinion that the application s hereby dismissed at the admission stage Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge