HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI SUN!L KUMAR S1NHA, J. PETITIONER M.C.C.No. 131 of 2006 Ram Dayal Patet S/o Padum Singh © Padum Lai, aged about 55 years, Occupation-Patwari, R/o - Dhanyaon P.0. Putakapuri, Tahsil & Distnct - Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 6. Nanhu Ram S/o Padum Singh Pate! aged about 45 years, R/o Dhangaon P.0. Putakapuri Gauri Bai D/o Padum Singh W/o Gan^h Ram aged about 55 years R/o Karipaali, Tahsil - Kaharasiya, Distt. Raigarh. Munuram S/o Padum Singh Patel aged about 50 years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh Devmati Bai D/o Padum Singh Patel W/o Radh^yam ^ed about 48 years, R/o Jaampall, (Surri) P.0. Tadoia, Tahsil & Dlstt. Raigarh. Kampany Lal S/o Govlnd Ram aged about 30 years Vidyanand S/o Govind Ram Patel aged about 28 yeears Must. Puranmati W/o late Govind Ram Patel, aged about 52 years All 5 to 8 are the R/o Boarasi, tahsit - Dhabhara, Distt. - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) nn 8. Sulochana Bal D/o Govind Ram W/o snushll Kumar, aged about 2S years, R/o Pendrsws, Tahsi! - Dhabhara, Distt. - Janjgir- /s^'»—-*-</r»/"* \ t^iialiipei c^.\3.) 9. Khusi Ram S/o Tilak Ram Aghariya, aged about 24 years, R/o Dhangaon, P.0. Putakapuri, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 10. State of Chhattisgarh, (hrough- Coilsctor, Raigarh (C.G.) Application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 290/2005 Present: Shri Dhani Ram Patel, tearned counsel for the petitioner. ORDER rth (07m February, 20C8) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on M.C.P.No.441/2006 (petition for condonation of delay in flling the restoration petition). (2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the petltioner has succeeded in showing the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration petltion. (3) M.C.P.No.441/2006, therefore, is altowed and the delay in filing the restoration petition is hereby condoned. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner is ateo heard on restoration petition. (5) The petitioner is seeking restoration of S.A. No. 290/2005 which came to be dismissed on account of non-compliance of ^. order dated 25-10-2005 whereby the appellaint in the second appeal was directed to pay process fee within 7 days, falling which the appeal shatl stand dismissed without reference to the Bench. (6) On due conslderatlon, M.C.C. No. 131/2006 Is allowed and S.A. No. 290/2005 is restored to its original number. Sd/- ChiefJustice | _ ..^~I_—c;, Sunil Kumar Judge Subbu