HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 173 OF 2004 APPLICANT 1. Tribhuwan Soura, aged about 44 years, son of late Shankar Soura occupation Labour 2. Sunderlal Soura, aged about 42 years, son of late Shankar Soura, occupation Labour 3. Raman Lal Soura, aged about 36 years, son of late Shankar Soura, occupation Labour 4. Dhamanlal Soura, aged about 32 years-son of late Shankar Soura, occupation Labour All residents of Gram Kherha, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Versus NON-APPLICANTS 1. General Public (related to this case) 2. Jhuklal, son of Shri Kuswa Rawat, aged about 48 years, Resident of Jailpara, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Ms. Sh&rmila Singhai, Adv. for the applicant. None fcr respondent No. 2 though sei-ved. <z^ ORAL ORDER (5-4-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal, J 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfled with the order dated 7-7- 2004 passed in Misc. Civil Suit No. 20/2002 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raigarh affirming the dismissal order passed by.^Additional Judge, Sarangarh to the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Raigarh in Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2000 dated 11-1-2001, instant revision has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. The applicants herein have preferred an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act against the non- applicants. The case was fixed for hearing by the Trial Court on 9-10-2000. On the said date, as the applicants as well as their counsel did not appear, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. Immediately on the next t.-^ 2^ date, i.e. 10-10-2000, the applicants have preferred application for restoration of the case. The ground taken in the application was that earlier the present case was listed jointly with the other case filed by Suklal son of Kuswa Rawat. Since the other case was listed on 10-10-2000, under the same impression the applicants and their counsel could not appear on the date of hearing. On that date i.e. 10-10-2000, when they appeared in the case, then only they came to know about said dismissal. Immediately on the same day, they filed application for restoration of the case. Learned trial Court holding it as insufficient ground dismissed the said application. The appeal preferred there- against was dismissed on the ground that the appeal preferred by Suklal in case No. 20/2002 is dismissed for default. Learned counsel for the applicants would contend that the orders passed by both the Courts below are patently illegal. Both the Courts below have not even considered the ground taken in the application. There was a delay of one day in preferring the application therefore, learned Trial Court ought to have restored the application filed by the applicants and ought to have proceeded to decide the said application on merit. I have heard leanied counsel for the applicants. Perused the order impugned and also the order passed by the ti-ial Court (Annexure A-l). Learned Court below did not see the fact that immediately on the next day, the application for restoration was filed and the grounds shown were sufflcient to allow the application and restore the original application. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the application filed by the applicants. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the revision filed by the applicants deserves to be allowed ^ (^ and is hereby allowed.. Succession case filed by the applicants is restored to its original number. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to decide the case on its own merit in accordance with law. 8. Since the matter is very old, it is directed that the matter shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. 10. The applicants shall appear before the Trial Court on 19-4- 2010. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge