IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.c.c. No {£25 0f 2010 I/V M/Qé A/& £9? IZ£/H Adnuram Sahu, S/o Maniram sahu, aged'about 45 years R/o ViHage — Tulshighat, ‘P.s. & Tahsil Lormi, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICANT VERSUS Ramesh Singh S/o Shri Faguram Rajput, aged about 31 years, DriVer Matador No. CG. 10 C/1997, R/o Village Majgon , Tahsil —Lormi, District — laspur (C.G.) Yatendra Kumar Katri /O te Khemchand Khi, aed t 4 years, Owne Matador No. .G. 1 C/1997, R/o Mahamaya ro, Near Shivaji Mandir, Lorm, ahs Lormi, District w Biipur (.G.) Bajaj AHianz Gener Insranc Company Limitd, 'Thro it Branch Manaer, Bajaj lIianz General Insurance Coany Limited, Second fior, V. R. Plaza Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) M iil on of Miscellaneous iscellaneous cv case for restorati Appeal (C ) N0. 999/2010 - “ Adnura m Sahu VS. Ramesh Singh & Others" dismissed on 30.9 .2010 for want of is Honble Court. Prosecution by the Division Bench of th ' Bi a h S La atr g abou O r C 0 ad i Til— as C al ue e ugh s g A mp o , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. M.C.C. No. 625 of 2010 Applicant Adnuram Sahu, s/o. Maniram Sahu, Appeiiant aged about 45 years, r/o. village Tulshighat, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS Non-applicants 1. 'Ramesh Singh s/o. Shri Faguram Respondents Rajput, aged about 31 years, Driver Matador N0. CG.1O Cl1997, village Majgoan, District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Yatendra Kumar Khatri s/o. Late Khemchand Khatri, aged about 4O years, owner Matador No. CG '10 C/1997, r/o. Mahamaya road, Near Shivaji Ma‘n’dir, Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Bajaj Link Road, Bilaspur (CG) Bajaj Allianz General Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, V.R. Plaza, Application for restoration of MA(C) No.999/2010 Present : Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the petitioner. ORDER (13m December, 2010) VO The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri A.L. Singraul, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner is heard on the restoration petition. 2) The petitioner is seeking restoration of Misceiianeous Appeal (C) No. 999 of 201 0, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide orde‘f-dated 30.09.2010. v“ 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied, that the absence of the petitioner's/appellant‘s counsei on 30.09.2010, when Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.999 of 2010 was taken-up for - hearing, was based on bona tide grounds. 4) M.C,C. No. 625 of 2010, therefore, is allowed and Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 999 of 2010 is restored to its orLgLial number. \E, 5di- Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar l Chief Justice Judge nlmml