HIGH COURTOF CH-HATIIsGARji'AT BlLAsPUR. single Bengt; Hgn’ble Mr. Justlge:,Pritin!cet Diwaker, writpgmion (2g?) Mo, z144 gt 21m- PETI‘HQNER: 1‘. Lakshami Prasad, aged 46 ygars, Raswwaams Son of Late S'nri Bisahu Lai Teii; PLAINIIFFS 2. Amar. Singhr agedr36’ years, $on of Late S'nri Bisahu Lai Teii; 3‘ Vyash Narayang aged 33 K yearsi Son of Late Shri Bisa'nu La! Teii; 4. Parmeshwar‘ aged. 32years, San of Laie Shri Babu Lai Teii; 5: lshwar Sinah ‘9" 'i aaed "a ’ W' 30 yeam; San. of Late Shri Babu Lai Taii; 6. Bhuneshwar. Singh, aged 27 years, Son of Late Shri Babu Lai‘ Tali; 1 Rajeshwar $ingh, agad 25 yearg Son of Late Shri Babu Lai Teii; m‘ Dhananfaya, agad, 18..yea.r$, 3cm of Late Shri Babu Lai Teii; All tho reoident of Village, Gateway. Ta'nsii Masturi, District Biiaspur' (3,6,) 9.’ 'Smt; Jamuna Bai; aged; 75 yaarsQ; Widow of Late Shri Mohan Lai, ‘ resident of Village Kanhal. Bandai Tahsii Janjgir, L‘Jist‘rict Janjgir— ‘ Champa (Lien) Vel$u$ RESPONDENT$I 1. National Thermal Power APPELLANTI' Corpor'ation, Sipat, 6ffioe Bilaspur DEFEEQANT“ through the Chlef OfficerIGenéral Manager, N,T.P=C. Sipatr, District Biiaspur (C.G.) @ 2, State of Chhattbgarh; thmugh the Coiiector, Biiaspur (C.G.) 3, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Biiaspur (C.G.} 4x Dharam Singh; aged 49 ysam; Son of Late Shri Bisahu Lai Teii, resident 9f Village Gataura‘ Tahsil iv‘iasturi, Disirict Biiaspur (C,G.) Shri MD: Shanna, cgunsel fer the’ petitigners, Shri ED. Guru, counsei for respondent No. 1. . Shri Satish Gupta? Dy: Gavtt Advecata fer respondents No. 2 and 3. wRH PEIlTlg. UNQ§RARTIGLE227 OF THE / CGnisTiTiiTmN 6F iNDiA With the consent at the parties, l matterislheard linaliy-. The petitianer has assailed theorder dated 15=Q4i20Q9M passed by 6 th Additional Distict Judge, n} “Leena. r in r‘VM.lQ vui. i- N9, 17.-A_I2007 by w.ic., the Court has. directed, that» the applieatien tiled; by the re$pendent Next uncler Seetign‘é of the Limitation Act would behclecidedualeng with the main? appeal. Gententien of Shri Shame, eeuneel fer, thepetitioner ie that firetthesappiicatien for condonatien of the deiay sheuld be decided andthen only the. appeel:.cen. be. decided on 2 merits. Shri B.Dt Guru, counsel for reependent No: 1,, very fairly submits that he has ne ebiectien if the epplieetien ae o / / . 'ia r flied undarSection 5 aims Limitatinn Act is decidadfirst ang @ the thereafter the appaal, may be deeided‘ Shri Satish Gupta, counselfcr resmndents‘Ng. 2.8L a submits:that,,Stata.,is aformal party; Afte: hearing counsel f9: thapartiasx it is diregtgd :to, court beigw t9. first’degidem the appimatian as‘fiiecirby tha‘ respondent N0, 1 under Section 5 oi thevLim'rtation Am‘ and.» . mgreafter to proceed and. dacide appgal. itsetf an merits; _ Counsel for the parties: hava mintgcL cut‘thavt.‘ the appeali is gaming sings last; mom thanr'gneryaar themfm'es the directian may be issued‘ to. the court below to: early diepeeal efthe epeeel; ‘Preyee of me counsel- fer the games eeeme 1x). .be reasonableandwtherefereit. is expected {mm theeourt betow t9 decide the case expediticusty; With the abcve’obseWation, petitien. etende diseased.__ 9f, Sd/- ' Pritinker Diwakert‘ ... . Judge 1, ' Dubey