'- ^.4 p ;:1 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR MCC No. Tl^ /2011 (Arising out of Civil Revision No. 10^2011) walaaens APPLICANTS pRNo p^. c'^ ^\\v\\\ ^ss? ^--;^TFi i ^t»9-. y^f^e^si ^asssss. VERSUS NON-APPLICANT^ 1. G. R. Chandramohan, aged about 56 years, S/o. Late Shree N.G. Pillai Gupta, R/o. 124 Ayappa Nagar Supela Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.1) 2. Naresh Kumar Ramteke aged about 42 years, S/o. Shree K. Ramteke Ward No. 08 Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.2) 3. Sanjay Ram Chandani, aged about 37 years/ S/o Late Shri Arjunram Chandani, R/o Lal Bagh, Sindhi Colony, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.3) 4. Rajesh Singh aged about 46 years/ S/o Rajdev Singh/ R/o House No. 170, Mudhipar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.4) 5. Khomeshwar Sahu, aged about 32 years, S/o Girdhari Lal Sahu, R/o Mamta Nagar/ Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.5) 1. S.R.M. Foundation of India, (Spiritual Regeneration Moment Foundation of India), New Delhi, A-14, Mathura Road/ New Delhi, Branch Office- MIG-22, S-Phase, Heerapur, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, through- General Power of Attorney Shri Dinesh Chandra Khare, aged about 50 years, S/o Virendra Prasad Khare, R/o Heerapur, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (PLAINTIFF) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (DEFENDANT N0.6) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF ClVIL REVISION NO. 10^/2011 :-HC—78 ^n^T^Tf^w '<CT'STT^T ^^NT 4. ~^~ ^"s? '^iA<i(n^, ^xinl<-ili(o, [®i<ni<-i^< ^..M.C^.M&.-...^.Z.2^^ 'WTpTT ^»^|cb"""*"^""""l"""""<"""""T7"""^200 3TI^T TI^F (T^35I^T) ^nw ^if^r 3:n^?T S.B: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE rV.K. AGARWAL 14.11.2011: ^FT^fd^ll THT^if ^ fs^l Tfsf^R '^'stfW^^T Shri Rahul Tamaskar, coJLinsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P| Since certified copy of fiied by the applicants, therefo) pressed. Counsei for petitioners i^ . for the State/respondent No.2. he order dated 31.10.2011 has been re, I.A. No. 1/2011 is dismissed as not heard on restoration application. The petitioners are s^eking restoration of CMI Revision No. 102/2011 which was dismi^sed for want of prosecution vide order dated 31.10.2011. On due consideration ofjthe submission of the learned counsei for the petitjoners and the groijinds taken in the restoration petstion, am satisfjed that the abse ^tce of the petitioners' counsel on No. 102/2011 is restored to its d 31.10.2011 when Civii Revi^ion No.102/2011 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fid^ grounds. M.C.C. No. 772/2011, ttferefore, is allowed and Civii Revision riginai number. Acopy of this order be j^aced on record of the original file and the same be listed for hearing i Certjfied copy, as per rui^s. ^i the next week. Sd;- N.1 Judge