^y>"" "€^^ ' ^ IN THE HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH M.C.C. N0. 2, ^-^ OF 2006 §jH| ( Arising out ofW.P. No. 1015 Of2004) BETWEEN Ismail Khan (Dead) ^Aghori Lal Kuldip S/o Kirit Ram Chouhan, aged about 49 years, resident ofKachhari Chowk, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). ^ob APPLICANT PETmONER ^-s^ ^•^ VERSUS y y•»' ^f^ ^^.. ?tate of Chhattisgarh- Through The Collector, R&igarh (CG). ^ Salim Mohammad S/o Sakur Mohammad , aged about 43 years, occupation service (Krishi Uapj Mandi Sarangarh), resident of Ward No.3, Safi Gali Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG). 3^, Mahendra Kumar S/o Sitaram Agrawal, aged about 32 years, is occupation businessman, resMent of Sadar Raod, Sarangarh . . District Raigarh (CG). 4. Uddhav S/o Kurso Vishwakamia, aged about 57 years, occupation Lohari business , resident of Pratapganj, Sarangarh Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG). k Sottamlal S/o Shyamlal , aged about 40 years, caste Kahar, occupation agriculture, resident of Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG). 6y Shiv Kumar S/o Radheshyam, aged about 31 years, occupation / agriculture, resident ofSarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). RESPONDENTS \k. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OPWRIT PETITION N0.10T5/2004 (BETWEEN ISMAIL KHAN fDEAD) AGHORI LAL KULDIP VERSUS STATE OF CHHA.TTSIGARH AND OTHERS 1 DISMISSED IN DEFAULT OF FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION ON DATED 30.7.2004 r XI-HC-78 *11*<ni Sh*1iq» 'SSI -qiq|c1<l, CTTlltl'IS, tslMIUy ^;^:^^ 3ii^i ia<n ('i'il^6"^) sn^rw \w'i'* tWT3TTOTsht|l»h .& v_ BTtfTWflfeTSn^T Mr. Sunil Sahu, counse! for tH Heord on admission. This M.C.C. has been fil No.1015/2004 to its original number|, July, 2004 on the ground of non-pr^ was calied, none present. I have per-used the M.C.C. in| Lakhu Thawait, cierk of lower c4 5arangar-h, throu9h whom the petit fiie from the Office of counsel forf when the matter was listed on 30 t'l of the petitioner. In para 3 of the 18-4-2006, said Lakhu Thowait again| on which he was asked to send the appiicant came and contacted the co| 2006 and thereafter, due to summe|r couid not be fiied. As the file was therefore due to over'sioht, counse|l July, 2004 ond the mistake is bona fj This AA.C.C. has been fiied <v No.1010/2006, application for application, has been filed and same for condonin9 the deiay, as nnentione|d <owFCT<fl-f t)i*«aT^''tetfl'<R]t<;i< ^sri^Tsn^r e applicant. fcd for restoration of Writ Petition which was dismissed by this Court on 30 (isecution, as on that day when the matter Iwfhich it has been mentioned that one Mr. |urt counse! pra<sticin9 in Tehsil Court, |on was received, came and withdrown the the petitioner on 18-4-2004, therefore, ^uly, 2004, no body was present on beha!f appiication it has been mentioned that on lcame and delivered the file to the counsel party so that affidavit con be filed. The Ijnseionwhich affidovit was filed on 26-5- holidays, the application for restoration ifithdrawn from counsel for the petitioner, jl for the petitioner could appear on 30 Ide. <yith the deley of 652 days and M.(C.)P. con<^onation of delay in fiiin9 the restoration 1-hing has been mentioned in this appiication in the AA.C.C. XI-HC-78 TS? "Ml^lcl'M, »rl1tl'l6,Rli'liuy ^l^dl **li* • • • 1'1'-^'>r"-^^~:^^ 200 ^, W^(\ W<h ('^•S^'iff) a'n^r^r^iTO cWTSTI^TshxItt) t--^- cn5-fte- ?T(irw(ifeT3n^r The appiicsnt is required tc^ negiigsnt and that there wos si( reasonsble and bona fide also. TH appiicant was negligent. Lakhu ThaH| for fiiing the petition, himse!f too| other counsei and thereafter, he d| the petitioner appeared in the case on 30"' July, 2004 when the matt^r months, Lakhu Thcnutit a9ain contac^ fited on 26-5-2006. Above fact shk not fiiin9 the M.C.C. within the pericjd Therefore, I do not fincj condonation of delay and the M.C.C[ are hereby disfflissed, at the admiss| *i''<Fi-i41-f iiidT^Ts'4 <(:si'K;i< ^SlRjlTSn^T expiain each day's delay that he was not ^fficisnt cause for the de!ay, same was ie focts as narrcted above show thot the [dt, who enga9ed counsel for the petitioner ^ the file on 18-4-2004 for en9agin9 some d not appear, but name of the counsel for jist, even then the counsel was not present was calied. After, about one year nine |ed the counsei on which this application was ows thst there wss no sufficient cause for of prescribed limitatipn. any substance in the cppiication for ., same are liabie to be dismissed ond they ion stage itseif. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge