0% 3 ‘1) wgw Bgmfm IN THE HGN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CH-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT /A’PPLICANT ,,RE SPONDENIS K‘NON-APPLmpNTs “v! \L :w ‘ ,v-/ V”. R. emeé “°‘ '7 m 3m'h-v 51g§.l..@..7 t. v ?‘e8 _ 1”,: da‘eé "nil-u! 9 e 'vx . $ww gwgvaw‘g V / Smt. Sarala Agrawal aged 53 years wife of Dr. Bitthal Kumar Agrawal resident of Gudiyari, Raipur(C.G.) Misc. Appeal No. [“0” ‘ of 2004 /l. Mahadev TranSport Service {k BilaSpur, through M/s. Hakimu- ddin owner and Transportar ContraEtor, through— Has an Ahamd Khan, son of Ali Ahmad Khan, near Hotel Anand, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur Tah. & Di st’t. Bil aSpur (C. G. ) . Ghanshyam Rathore son of Gangaram RaJchore, Driver through— Hasan Ahmad Khan s/o Ali Ahmad Khan, near Hotel Anand , Bus Stand, BilaSpur(CG) 3/. iLThe Oriental Insurance Company Limited through— Branch Manager Branch Office Dayalband Bil aSpur (CfG. ) . 1 Bir Singh son of Budhram Gond, Truck Driver, Indira Nagar, Korbo, Tahsil o District Korba (C.G.) 5: Anil Kumar Sharma son of 0 / Mithlesh Sharma, Truck Owner 15 Block woo. F lo s.'E.c.L. Colliery, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.). foowhe New india Insurance Company o ) Ltd. Divisional Office, Trans- port Nagar, Korba Distt.Korba (C.G.) . ' :2- N ..,.wi,.,:.,o i I / f} . .- Au APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE a] (g) OF coDE OF Civu FROCEDURE ‘ READ mm RULE g4Q OF M.?.M0TOR_ VEaICLEs RULES $9.4, s -—‘_—————————_-—_—— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {6 S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra ‘ a Misc. Appeal No. 107/2004 APPELLANT : Smt. Sarala Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS : Mahadev Transport Service and others s; ; :14“ . K Ag: pearance: , ‘* ‘Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Iturani Mukherjee, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.6. None for other respondents. APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE l c OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORAL ORDER (15.09.2010) The claims tribunal has dismissed the appellant’s/claimants application for restoration of the claim petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10/01/2001. (2) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the finding recorded by the claims tribunal while rejecting the prayer for restoration is not correct and that previous non-appearance cannot be a ground to refuse restoration of the suit without examining as to whether the default on the date when the matter was dismissed for want ofprosecution was suEbiently explained or not. \ (3) Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order and has argued that the impugned order does not call for any \ interference. \ \Eru , the interest ofjustice. (5) (7) since the appellant has chosen to file the petition at Korba she was prosecuting the same in the claims tribunal at Korba. (8) In the totality of the circumstances, it appears to this court that the claim petition deserves to be restored and decided on its own merits. (9) The impugned order is set aside. The claims tribunal shall proceed to decide the claim petition on merits. It is expected of the appellant to cooperate for early disposal ofthe claim petition. '7 Sd/- Prash’ant Kumar Mishra Judge