HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARUAT-BtLASeUB ApDiicant Respondent No.8 Rs Respondent No.2 Rsspondent No.1 Respondent reo.3 RespondenS No.2 ResRondent No.4 Resportdenf Mo.s Respondent No.4 Respondent No.S No.5 Respondent HQ.J Respondent No.S Resoontiersf NoJ ..7 ResBonderst No.S .C.C. {PRjNo.3313oT2010 Lokesh Kumar Chandrakar agea' about 25 years, S/o. Shri Baldau Chandrakar, R/o. Vi'.lage Achhoti, TahsiJ Kurud, District Dhsmtan (CG) Versiis 1. Kunti Bai, aged about 55 years, VV/o. Shri RamakanS Chandrakar. R;'o Viiiags Segaonaka, Ivturai Compiex, PIat NoA'1, Amravati (MaharashSra) and Agricuiturisi of ViSiage Dahdaha, Kurud, TahsiS Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhatfisgsrh ~i. .• ig; about 50 year-s, S/o. Makhan Lai Chandrakar, 3. Tekrarrs, aged about 47 years, S;'o. Shri Makhan La! Chandrakar, 4. Yash Kumar, agsd about 45 ysars S/o Shri Makhanla! Chandrakar, 5. Slta Bai, aged about 50 years, W/o. Makhan La! C-handrakar, S. Raman @ Shivnarsyan, agea about 37 years, -S/o. Makhan La! Chandrakar. 7. i <a^ij^^*» b.<3^/t i'x";hhu @ Shiv Kumar, aged about $5 ysars, S./o. i*s1akhsn Lal Chandrakar, Prabhater Rao, aged about 40 years, S/'o. Narayan Rao, Preeilbaia, agad aboui 23 years D/o. Baidau Chandrakar, Rsspondents No.2 to 9 are R/o. Viltefle and PosS Achhotl, Tahsl! Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Appifoation for rscail'ing/modifrcation ofthe order dated 6.8.2010 passed fe; this Court in Writ Petiticn (227) No.3787 of 2010) (SB: Hon'ble Ur. T.F. Sharma, J.) Mr.Pawan Keshar.'vani, counsel forthe applicani .{SSSe't:';.'^!..'^ •t-,. •--"-V, S tsa«al a ^yessy "•^yy '''•^"sss?^ -2- (Passed on 21st April, 2011) . Registry has polnted out defauii that the appiicsnt has not fiied M.C.C. as psr C.G. High Court Ruies and has siso not propsriy draftsd appllcatlon for condonafion dsiay. 2. i have perused order No.3787of2010. dated S.8.2010 passed in Writ Petitfon (227) 3. Virtually by fiiing this appiication, She appiicant has praysd fer rsealiing of the order passsd by this Cou?t. Vide ordsr dated 6.8.2010 rsspondent No.1 has exempted from paying Court-fsss. Court-fees dispute is bstwesn ths State and private party i.a. in ihe present cass, respondsnt No.1 and the State and not between ths present appifcant ana it No.1. Even the appiicatson is not masntasnsbie. 4. With the aforssaid observation.the appiicatson for recaiiine/modification of the order is dismissed. No order as to costs. —— —— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge