^^ o HI6H COURTOF WHATTK6AW ATBILASPUR Cr.M.P. No.381/2008 a PETETIOENRS NON-APPLICANTS olt RESPON&ENTS APPLICANT5 1, Suresh Kumar Thakur, 5/o lort-e Shri Ramswarup Suingh Thakur, aged dbout 48 years, Occupation Branch Managep,, Co-operative^ank Branch Sankra, yilhge Sankra, P.S. Basna, Tahsit A Distr. Mahasamund (C.&). . PueHshottam badSena, S/o I.P. badsena, agfed about 58 years, occupation Supervisor, Gram'm Sahkari Sanstha, Pendrawan, Village Sankra, P.S. Basna, Tahsil and Distt. Mtihosflirnund (C.G.). Ramsingh Sahu S/o|S.R. Sahuagedabout 42 years, Occupalfion Manager, 6ramin Sahkari Sanstha, Pendrawan, Village Deori, P.S. Basna, Tahsil & Disft-. Mahasamund (C.6.)- Ramlal Dhruv S/o M.S. 6ond aged about 56 yea.rs, Area Officer, Basna; Pithora, Sankra Jonk Area Raipur R/o ^Zila SAhkari Bank Raipur, Tahsil & Distt-. Raipur (C.6.). ; Kartikram, aged about 38 years, S/o P.R. Bhoi occupation Watchman, ©namin Sahkari Sanstha Pendrawon, R/o Narayonpur, P.S. Basna, Tahsil A District Mahasatnund (C.©.). Versus \ Miss Sfltchi Sahu, aged about 45 years, t)/o Late Raghuram Sahu, Occupation Agriculturist and Advocacy, Permopent address Village Jamjuda, P.S. Bfxsna. Tahsil & District Mahasomund (JS.6.) Temporary R/o LJ..C. Colony, Vi Mowa, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.^.). lage 1 :a 1:'S ^stiiia ^M'?1 (CMMINALMISCEy-ANEQUS PETniION UNDER SECTTCON .482 @F THE CObE OFCKEACTNAl.PRQCEbURE.) z/- (SB: Hon'bleMr. T.P. Sharma. J.) Present: Shri Satish Chandra Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. ORAL ORD6R (Passed on 3rd December. 2008) 1. t-1eard onI.A. No. 01/2008, opplication fortaking documenton record. 2. The qiplicort'ion CE.A. N0. 01/2008) is aliowed. Documents taken on record. 3. This petition is directed a9ainst the order dafed 21/2/2008 passedi by 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahcsamund in revision No. 18/06 wherebyj Court below has rejected the restoration application filed on behalf of th^i oippliconts for restoration of the revision dismissed for non-payment u'f'j process fee. 4. Learned counsel for the appliamt submits thaton 16/5/2007 rewsion petition No. 18/06 was pending for consideration and court has directed to file process fee for issuance of notice to the non-applicant but on faiting such thecourt hasdismissed the revision petition. 5. It appears from the order dated 16/5/2007 -that dfter "taking intdj [I consideration the revision petition filed on behalf of the applictmts Gou^fj betow hofi directed applicants for filing of process fee for issuance of nptl"i<!;e H^ 1^ to the non-opplicant but failing such court has dismissed -riie t^evision orid! i same has not been restored and restoration application has also be^ Ril; a§pnf emjBqs "d'J. -/PS •ijss^n •iaposi|4. ssod <4 puD 6ujjD3t| j.o X+iun+joddo puo asj. ssaoojd j.o ^uaui/Dd j.o Ai.iun+^oddo 31,14. p^ojjf o^. paj.33^!p|s!Mo|aq+jno3 ·apiso-4.as /qa^aij puo aiqouno+sns i ' - ' j.ou si pauSnduii ^sp^o at|j. "Ajossasau +ou si X+^od a+isoddo 344. .(.o Suupati- 31.1+ ajoj.ajsi|4. japjo<4jod aS^ B+ou si japuo psuBnduti aij^ •ssj, ssasojd ^o (t"f . —- ^.o +uaiuAod ^o 3jn|jDj. uo ^|UQ uoi+i+ad ai|+ ssiuisip oj. +jno3 31)4. joj. jadojd 4.ousDm +1 usi|4. Suijosi) A<.jod aAq M^ 3Stx> 344. paxij.sD^+jno^puoisjAaj uSt|/^ •o+oiuon? j-apjo 344. pauiuiDXS puo piioo^ 3i|+ joj. ||D3 04. pajSModuia si +^no3 puoisiAa) ai|+ puo pasiAa^aq o+ 4.L|6nos/p3u6ndui! jap^o 344. j.o A+ai^do^d puo i<4.!p6a| 344. auiiuoxa o+ p3jinbaj SJD j-ino^ loubisiAs^ si)4. uo!4.3![»!^nr IDUOISIA&I aij4. Suisiojaxs a|!t|/w •pauSndui! jspao apiA'p^siiusip ^