? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.©.), 'OJ"M^ fc APPLtCANT: M.C.C..NO. J^/2011 Mst. Fatkin , widown of Late Tijaram, aged about 75 years, resident of village Urdana (Near Bhupdeopur), Tahsil and Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS NON APPLICANTS: 1. Kripadas, s/o G.urdhan, aged about 50 years, 2. Ramdas @ Ramlal, aged about 49 years, 3. Shyamdas @ Shyamlal, aged about 45 years, 4. Geeta, widow of Babulal, aged about 40 years, 5. MinorUma,agedabout17years, 6. Usha, D/o Babula, aged about 20 years, , R/o viilage urdana, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Saraswati, D/o Babulal, aged about 14 years, thrdugh gUardian,i.e. mother , respondent no. 4 Smt. Geeta, R/o village urdana, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Respondent No. 1-6 residents of village Urda'na, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Respondent No. 4-5 are residents of Viliage Sangitarai, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) C^/L 4 APPLICATINO FOR RESTORATION OF THE WRIT PETITION [227]N0.28/2011,MST.FATKINBAIVS.KRIPADASAND6 OTHERS,DISMISSEDFORWANTOFPROSECUTIONON 11.01 ^Oll^^^^^^^^^^r T XI-1 4; 311^1 qilf^fW w sn^i *t)iit> •;s <? ^ *<1*<CTI ^*1|cb "3'S; '•^iqi<1<4, tSlll^'Ko, fsldl'My —....M.CC:....!^O^..S.^.^/l.f. SI^TT 'VSW ('y/S^fl) (^nWBftasn^r S.B: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Nl.K. AGARWAL 19.08.2011: . Alok Bakshi, counsel Heardoni.A.No. 1/2011 of deiay in fiiing the restoration On due consideration, ]for the petitioner. (whlch is an application for condonation ^pplication. |1 am satisfied that the petitioner is M.C.C. No.546/2011, th (227) No.28/2011 is restored to 'tillii'i'jl-f ^PRif'? fS^t TfsR?Tt ^TStfinSTr^I succeeded in explaining the cjause of delay in filing the restoration apptication and, therefore, the ^pplication {I.A. No.1/2011} is allowed. Delay in fiiing the restoration aripJication is condoned. Also heard on applicatipn for restoration of W.P (227) No. 28/2011. The petitioner is seekir^g restoration of Writ Petition (227) No.28/2011 which was dismis^ed for want of prosecution vide order datedl 1.1.2011. On due consideration of for the petitioner and the grouj am satisfied that the absence cjl |the submission of the learned counsel (ids taken in the restoration petition, 1 the petltioner's counsel on 11.1.201 1 when Wrlt Petition (227) No.2^/201 1 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds. prefore, is allowed and Writ Petition its oriciinal number. Sd/'- ^^.Agarav Judge