ic.'III ^:^^-.^. :1 I- <A- y.y IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR M.C.C. No. B®ji /2006 ^ ^ v^ ^( (Arising out of WP No. 709/2006) ^pplicant ^Ishwar (Mentioned Ishwarif Prasad Verma S/o Late Deonath Kurmi, Aged About 62 Yrs. Dev Smriti, Shukla Colony, Raipur VERSUS R^spondent L-'Udai Bhanu S/o Bhuneshwar Kurmi Age 79 Yrs., R/o Teh. 8s Distt. Durg 3,. Rewaram Aged About 52 Yrs. 3, Vishnu Prasad Aged About 50 Yrs. 2 & 3 are S/o Late'Deonath Kurmi 4. Bhushanlal Aged About 52 Yrs. 5..- Ganesh Kumar Aged About 41 Yrs. 6. Sohrab Aged About 38 Yrs. 4 to 6 are S/o Parmanand Kurmi 7. Kapur Chand S/o Devlal Kurmi Aged 77 Yrs. 2 to 7 are R/o Vill. Akoli fMandhar), Teh. & Distt. Raipur .^- ^^ Application for Restoration XI-HC-22 1»N?' 3^'"Ml'4lcf'4,®T(1wi6,R<ii*fy 3ll^l4ac»> vi:, fc\ ) fri-c^^. ^^ 6^^ ^_ _. ^ t||t<rtl$b*<l* ••••••••••"••••••••• g^ 20fl 4 3I1^Tq>T teraisn^r st»4 (ffl^a gffll'tl an^T ?^<fra< flf?(T ipondefnts 30/0672006 Shri Raja Sharma, None for respondent^ ShriV.A. Goverdhanj Leamed counsel fori 15.6.2006 except respondefnts bchalf of ofher rcapoiiden^s, other respoiulents, this cas^ to which learued counsel for objection. Under Order 9 Rute | that no oider shaB be mafie application has been serve<|l reading of order 9 Rulc 8 the opposite parfy denote^ case was callcd out for dismjssed. However, if discontent with the aforesajd taking appiopisate steps. Heard. Takmg into petitioner for his non-app|earB the advocate, whfch ra not the Court, I am of fhe opu^ion consMl^ration <*l''<f?l''(1-< t||t<Cf)'fffe'<fl <RltCK ^Sri^ITSTI^T c^unsel for applfcant No. 1 to 3 and 7. counscl for respondents No. 4 to 6. appUcant submits aiul prays that on No. 4,5 and 6 no one appeared on i, thercfore, wifhout semng iiotice on li^e may be heaid finaUy aud disposed of for respondcnts; No. 4, 5 aad 6 has no 19(2) of fhe C.P.C., fhere is a provision lafle uuder fhfe rute untess notfce of fhe on the opposite party but fix»mconjoin 9 of the C.P.C., it appears fhat herc fhose who appeared earUer when the and in absence of pctitioiier was |respondents No. 1 to 3 and 7 aze anatogy they may agitate the same by dad hejaring app|earance, tfae reasoiis assipied by the ;, diily supported by affidavit of ^pposed by the respondents prcsent in that tbere was sufficieut cause for XI-HC-22 an^rw fSFiraiOn^r st'li'0 tilcn Kvr 353' 'flWW^, Wif{wi<a, RlClWy 3ll3l<fl i^cn r/\,c • i- (^o. -^^ ( *(T*IWI snilth W]; 200 Rl'b.A his non-appearance whcn TIiere&re, the applicatfon restored to its original numt) fhe case was called out for hearmg. |is altowed and W.P. No. 709/2006 is fer- Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge *i<ilfi'ifl-< tfiifcfT^Ts*^ <Ritci< ^arf^Tsn^r ^