\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH M.C.C.No. ICM OF 2004 APPLI ‘ ;d' ' 6a Brij Mohan Lal, S/O Prabhati Lal, \{gk Aged about g2 years, M/S Goyal Saw Mills, Station R0ad, Durg (C.G.). Versus W APPLICANT : Smt. Daljit Kaur, W/O Ranbir “ ‘Singh Chhane, Aged about 53 . « years, R/O Malviya Nagar, Durg (0G,). w’ APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF FIRST APPEAL NO 369/1994 CANT I XI—HC-22 ‘ .u .u....nu.n..u.u....n..n. . 3a, ’ F j Wm W O ._..... 200 .u..u.uuu. nu..." mmw WNWEWW %31%H3?T%&T 23-6-2t706 Shri HS. Patei, couns Shr. .G Tamaskar, t Heard on MCP No M.U.C. Learned counsei for appiicant received the infer] by this Coul‘t in FA. No.36£ order on 25/6/2004 and f maia fide but due to bona fi Learned counsei fort Having considered th facts and circumstances and the materiai on record. the deiay is condon d subject to costs of Rs.5OG/‘— payabie to the respono‘ent. The payment' MOP. No.121‘ W200 Heard. The present MCC restoration of First Appeai During the penden y of the first appeai, an appiication under Section 1'3 of fhe MP. *ei for the appiicant. ounsei for ihe non-appiicant. 121512004 for condonation of deiay in friing ‘the appiicant submifs that on 22i6i‘2004 the Lnation of the order dated 1m ZIZUU'J passed {i1994 and he appiied for certifred copy of the is how the deiay has occurred, which i$ not e mistake of the counsei. ‘e non-appiicant opposed the prayer. commodation Controi Act was made for dismissai of the appeai on ‘ e ground of non-compiiance and non-deposit of the amount. This appiic tion was heard on 16-7~2w2 and the order was passed by this Court t' at the appeai cannot be dismissed and it has to be heard in accordance e made or deposited in the CCD. stands disposed of. s been fiied by the appiicant/‘appeiiant for .36§i1 8&4. th taw. Against this order, an LF'A was fixed. ‘ x An order was passed in the LPA on 24-1 1-2003, which reads as underr , (@W) h 'a ‘ o ‘ ‘c i XI-HC-22 ”nu... nu. .nu . nu. mm M SP1.( m 200 ¥ mm mm WWW V WW§WW v1" %3T%H311%¥T Mn 1/2UUJ arm v.6. Tama$kaij coarwéi fcf fhé appelia‘rif. ' counsei for fhe respondent Learnea coun ei ror me appeilanr sunmns mar smce me has held that the anneal filed by U 'lUoyUIIUEIH Ila-b l UU IwHIU allu UULIUW UII IIICIHO, Uf¢ ' bmgle Judge ma directed Io near the appeai and dispose l/ date. sunmisswn, theappeai siana’s disposed le ludae wonld new hear all the parties ‘ After the passing o order in LPAI the first appeai was iisted on 1 I—12-2W3 for nearing on A.No.b41 IIZUUZ ror condonatxon 0t delay m depositing the amount. that date, neither the counsei for the respondent nor the respo nt was present and as such an order was passed that PF. be paid wi n Toays, tailing Which the appeal shan stand ‘ dismissed without reference Learned counsel f the non-appiicant/‘re'spondent submits that ‘1 though the copy of the appi tion (I.A.No.541 7f2002) was suppiied to him i on 29-10-2002, but this fact s'not disciosed to the Court and as such an order was passed on 17-12 2003 to pay process fee. He further submits ‘1 i i that the process fee a . nsei for the appiicaht/‘appeiiant contended that due to bona tide mista' e 'he couid not point out the aforesaid fact to this Court. He TUHHEF f t' e . n e t‘ 0 [he Bench automaticaliy.‘ o i a a ttedly was not paid and, the appeai was dismissed under the defauit Snrl Patel, learned ended that for his mistake the applicant! appeitant shouid not suffer. He prayed that the iapse on his part may be condoned. \ cheated) _ ‘“ y ‘ v r - '. a I i d u C t \ XI—HC—22 L»? restored to its ongmai numbe . -1 Lonsequentiy, an the ending appncations stand disposed ot At this stage. both the counsel prayed that since tne t-irstAppeai s of the year 1994, it may be listed in the week commencing 3rd Juiy: 2006. As prayed, the First 3ft July. 2006. certmed copy as per ruies. At this stage, counse Appeai be iisted in the week commencing for bot the’pan‘ies pray that tey may be atiowed to communicate the arder to the parties. Counsei for the parties; may communicate the order WW, Wm, thaw i h h M 9.9 l V. Wm 200 ..... . ...... .. WW v mm WWW mm%wm mm F3. $7Wanéar \4' Respondent has flied the repiy opposing the appiication for restoration. $hri Tamaskar, iearned counsei for the non-appiicant/respondent, submits that since the counsei for the applicanti appeiiant has reaiizeci that the deiay has been caused; he ought to have made every effort to get the First Appeai and MCC decided at the eariiest and after obtaining certified copy it shouid have been flied promptiy. The promptness was not shown by the appiicantiappeiiant. Nevertheless, it is a settied iaw that a party shouid not suffer because of the mistake of counsei. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the'case and the materiai on record the present iviCC is aiiowed and the First‘Appeai is