IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHRATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.C.C. No. ^53 /2oii 0'ivision Benct APPLICANTS ^4'ETITIONERS ^' Ramjilal Thawaith S/o. Sunderlal ThawaithAged about 62 years Gorelal Thawaith S/o. Sunderlal Thawaith aged about 53 years Rajesh Kumar S/o. Sunderial Thawaith aged about 42 years Jagdish kumar S/o. Sunderial Thawaith aged about 40 years All above R/o. Old Basti Korba Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Ambumal S/o. Chandumal R/o. Gupta Gali Korba Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATIQN OF SECOND APPEAL CP.R) N0. s6^/20o6 x7./'^"'' ^PONDEKpf^' ^<A ^ENDANJ/^ ^ yjr,.^/ t'y°v IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.C.C. No. ^3 /2oii Oh/ision Bendl APPLICANTS ^tETinONERS Ramjilal Thawaith S/o. Sunderlal Thawaith Aged about 62 years ^F Gorelal Thawaith S/o. Sunderlal Thawaith aged about 53 years Rajesh Kumar S/o. Sunderlal ^ Thawaith aged about 42 years 4 /. ^ \r.-/^z iPQNDE^^' /X\ ^ENDAI^.y^ ^%4/ Jagdish kumar S/o. Sunderlal Thawaith aged about 40 years All above R/o. Old Basti Korba Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Ambumal S/o. Chandumal R/o. Gupta Gali Korba Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) <y APPLICATION FOR RESTORATIQN OF SECOND APPEAL CP.R) N0. .t6^/20o6— StI^I W R-li'* WT 3TI^?T Sh*liq» ^- ~f^ '*IWW<i, 'StftgrR', fsldl'K^'f. _. h'C-.c l^o •T-S'OI/^II •W^WSKW^-'-1-^--^-'^-^'/-—^ 200 sn^r TT^i' ('^f3<i^r) TOiiw^f^rOT^r 'DI^ICT^T +ii*i<nf ^ f^yf Tf^R^TC ^SlfifT 311^51 DB : HON'BLE SHRI I. M.OUDDUSI & HON'BLE MANINDRA |M. 8HRIVA8TAVA, JJ 09.3.2011 Mr. Vikram Dixit, couas^1 for fhe appUcaxits. This is aa appUcation | for restoration of Second Appeal (P.R) No.3613/2006 wl|uch has been disinissed for non-prosecution on 21.04.20Q8. There is delay of 1065 days ia fiting the application, ^herefore, I.A.No.1/2011 for condonation ofdelay has also Ifieen ffled. - In facton 21.04.2008,) fhe appeal was Usted ia default wifh a report of defaul non-filuig of fhe certified copy From. the perusal of fhe recor^ was removed on 21.04,2008 b-] certified copy of fhe trial courj ;. The default was regardiag of fhe trial Court Judginent. , it appears that fhe default r filing application along«rafh Judgment by the previous couasel ia Registry, but on tl|iat date fhe case was Usted before fhe Court aud nobodyjhad conie to poiat out fhat the defaiilt was reinoved on ftjiat day aad hence the Court dismissed the appeal for non be noticed fhat the appeal Second Appeal (PR) No.3613/: registered afier removiag fh^ default as Second Appeal No. 166/2006 by fhe Regis infonued the appeUaats that ^prosecution. It has also to fciuiaber was inentioned as S006 whereas fhe appeal was ^y- The earUer counsel fhe default was remQved by T SSVtS& sn^Twft'lNr WT-SII^T sh^ll^t Q-, Rao '3^ '^l'MICl*!, ®Ti1y'IS,[°1<y1iyy,< t(W<1T (S*ll% •Wl 200 an^i'i iRq? ('^if^S?) ?«ttt);R^fca Sffl^iT him, but in. fact the appeaf. prosecution Which was not inf<|> when appeUaat no.l canie to found that the appeal was di^] ou 21.04.2008. We are of the opmion be penalized because of the ia appearing and infoniiiag fh^ reinoved. Therefore, we are o) appeUaats had no kaowledge appeal ia default, the delay| condoaed. Therefore, applicatj.on is atlowed. M.C.C. is also aUowed fd6 Second Appeal is restored to it^ 1. List fhe appeal before ap^ropriate Bench. Sdj- I.M.Quddusi Judge ^sy •*l<<ict4-l IWdf 'iffSV 'rfSR^R iisfflmsn^i was .disiaissed for non- ^rmed to the appeUaats aad iverify in fhe year 2011, he inissed for non-prosecution ttjat the appeUant should not isSluie ofthe leamed counsel it Court that fhe default was fhe opinion fhat since the labout the disinissal of the m fitmg the M.C.C., be for condonation ofdelay the above reasons and the > original number. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge »ll<l'0<ll9A<lllii"llcWI,(WIWIR—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,600. ^ ^••^•^^;^i;^^^;;^B^^BIB%^K^^^£^.%^^^;:.':^^1:;^'-:^.-' sSWSMiSMSSE'SSSiWSSSSSSiSSiSSSS'fQ