3> HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. N0. /2008 (WRIT PETITION 2619/19951 s APPLI.CATION FOR RESTORATION OF WRIT PETITION N0. 2619/1995. DISMISSEDIN DEFAULT ON 17.04.2006 O^^^K: ^U^&^M^ PETITIONER ,S.K. Singh, aged about 36 (48) years, S/o iri Rajeshwarsingh, Officer, Bilaspur- RaipurKshetriya Gramin Barik (At present known as Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank), Branch Gondkhamhi, Distt. Bilaspur (M.P. Now C.G.) present place of postina - Branch Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, R/o. Bangalipara Gully No. 3, Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^'RESPONDENTS \A^ .••"".^u.^ ^•••^ .^ .:^ Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank through - its Chairman, Head Office - Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) (At present known as Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank H/o. at Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur) The Chairman, Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Head Office - Dayalband,.. Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) (Now C.G.) (At present known as Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank H/o. at Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur) ^( HIOH COU8T OT CHHATnSCMRH AT BILA8PUE. |M..- PETmONER RESPONDENT8 M.C.C. No. 95 ot'2008 S.K.Sin^i. VERSUS B&svspw Raipur Ksfaetriya Gramin Barik & aaother. APPLICATION FOR RE8TORATION OF WRIT PETmON N0. 2619/1995 SB: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Asi^iotri. J. Present: Shri AN.Bhakta, Advocate forlfae petitionCT. Shri Sumit Venna, Advoeate for tfie re^poiidents. ORALQRD3ER (Passed on 16th day of March, 2010) Heard on I.A. No. 1, application fbr condonation of detoy to jBling restoration application. 1. In reply to tiie above applieation, the resp<mdents-Bank has not pomted out any fact that after dismissal ofthe writ petitioa, some new nghts have accmed in favour of aay person or caEKlw^rtion of delay wo^ld prejudice the interest aiid rights ofthe respondent-Bank or any persoii. 'The sole objection raised by the respondente-Badc m tfaat fhe dtelay is 011 aceount of Garelessness on the part oflfae petdtioner or toe petitioner's advoeate. 2. Having consideared Ihe response, delay m jMing iie I'estoratitm application is condoaed, subject to payment ofa cost ofRs. 1500/" to the respondents-Bank. 3. Leamed eounsel appearmg tor the petftioiKr sutamts tiiatthe counsel for fhe petitioner could not appear on account of b<ma ft^ mistake, Aeyefore, W.P No. 2619/1995, whichwas dismissed on 17th April, 2006 may be restored to its file. 4. Reasonable and sufficient caase has been rfiovm. W.P No. 2^19^1995 m restored to the onginal file. 5. A copy oflhis order be placed on record ofliie origtaal wsft pet&tion and the same be listed fbr hearing. Sd/-. SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Asnit