HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal No.550 of 2003 ^ APPELLANTS: ••^ RESPONDENTS: 1. (a) Jagannath Soni, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Madhukar Prasad, Occupation Government Teacher, R/o Barayeepara, Durg, Tah. & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) (b) Jagdish Prasad, aged about 46 years, S/o Shri Madhukar Prasad Soni, Occupation Service in Bhilai Ispat, R/o Risali Sector, Qtr.No.0267, Post Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) (c) Bhagwat Prasad, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Madhukar Prasad, (worker jn shop) (Now working as Painter) R/o Subhash Nagar, R/o C/o. Sahu, Post & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Present R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Behind Tirupati Lodge, Juna Bilaspur (C.G.) (d) Shiv Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Madhukar, Occupation Tailor, R/o Village Barela, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (e) Ashwani, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Madhukar Prasad, R/o Devkar, Tah. Saaja, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) (f) Smt. Shakuntala, aged about 44 years, W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar, Occupation House wife, R/o Village Nayapara Rajim, Tah, Rajim, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (g) Smt. Mayadevi, aged about 36 years, W/oShri Shyamsharan Soni, Occupation Service in SECL Gevra Project, Post Gevra, Distt. Korba (C.G.) (h) Smt. Triveni Soni, aged about 26 years, W/o Shri Geetram Soni, Occupation House wife, R/o Village Dheer, Tikul Nawagaon, Tah. Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari, PO Jhiriya (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Santosh Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Nohar Prasad Soni, R/o Nawagaon, Agriculturist & Swarnkar, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Present R/o Kumharpara, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Smt. Satbai, W/o Lakhlal (Correct Name Lakhanlal Soni), Occupation Agriculture, R/o Chhuikhada, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Distt. Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ..-jy\ sd^--1 "^S^M^cellaneous civil appeal under Order 43 Rule1 (T) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocatefor the appellants. Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (18-6-2009) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9-4-2003 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara in Misc. Judicial Case No.1/2003 whereby learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application for readmission of the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution/no instructions pleaded by counsel for the appellants. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused order impugned as also the record of the Court below. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that on the date of hearing, counsel for the appellants pleaded no instructions, therefore, the appeal fixed for hearing was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and after lapse of time, the present appellants have filed an application for readmission of the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which has been rejected vide the order impugned i.e. the order dated 9-4-2003. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that parties should not suffer for the fault of counsel and reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the parties. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the present appellants were not vigilant to contest their case and no option except to plead no instructions was left with the counsel for the appellants, therefore for the gross negligence of the appellants, the Court < %^^, ^<h below has dismissed the appeal and also dismissed the application filed under Order41 Rule 19 ofthe C.P.C. for readmission ofthe appeal. 5. Civil Appeal No.38-A/84 was pending before the Court which was dismissed for want of prosecution as no instructions was pleaded by counsel for the appellants, but afterwards the appellants have applied for readmission of the appeal and immediately by way of application for condonation of delay, the appellants have explained the delay in filing the appeal and also explained the cause of their non-appearance. The appellants are required to explain each day's delay, but the Court was required to consider and take lenient view in consideration the delay. However, the Court below has failed to consider the grounds for absence of the appellants and thereby committed substantial illegality. 6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned dated 9-4-2003 is hereby set aside. The appeal pending before the Court below is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 3-8-2009 for further prosecution of the case. No order as to costs. 7. M.(C.)P.No.996/2003 thus stands disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge