IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT DEFENDENT ^^^ '^..•••••"" ^fl-a' %i8ie M.CftC. No. /2005 RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS ^co^. '^t^^ .0>V1 (^-Ariman S/o Manohar Gaste Urban ^ aged about 55 years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Amapali Tahsil Dharmajaygarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ; VERSUS :/T. Girdhari S/o Budhuram aged about 60 years caste Kanwar, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Amapali Tahsil Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ; 2. State of Chhattisgarh through The District Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) ft.. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OFS.A. N0. 418/05 BE- TWEEN SULEMAN Vs GRDHARI DISMISSED 1N DEFAULT FOR WANT OF PROSECUTIO ON DATED ON '02.12.05. XI-HC-22 sn^i^n f?;li?T 3I1§?I gniWHf^l ^s '^Wvit',, 'Sflt^FIS, ']<si?iTfiTp <CT]^;fS' '^VWi: H.e.e.. ^o.-s-iil^'" ^^'[fca 2SK ^H^l6^1T8R'(fe 27.01.2S06 ShriU.R. Khoslsy.iearned Hearci. The appeliant has p.'eferre| No. 418/2005 as the same was dl dated 02/12/2005 bythis Court. Learned counsei for the •was iisted on 02/t2/2005 and wh( 7VO (p^^ sw-'appearsd on behalf ofthe a?j -^ '' " I therefore the case was dismissed ' on 02.12.2005 there w-as bereavdm and therefors he coulcl not appea| ficje and condonabis. However hel .application. ' ' 'Taking into consjderation tfl 'the appsiiant the appfication is 41RJ^'p"IH^ i^ <s^i aisir^ a.nrl ^f .ie; rl: •;• i </<' .L "1.1?'u.'••^ ?3 •3C?i. riiSiUC? .SL'i i iLi ij restoredto its original num&er. qTpfeifrT wi?ff'? fest ^fwat ^T sipgq aii^t . »s applicat!on Tor restoration &f 5.A. smissed for non-prosecution vide order ipeijant.submits Shat yuiien the matter •n the same Vi'as taken up by the Court snt even In She second round and forvant ofprosecution. He submjts that |ment in'the famiiy of Shri U.R.Khosiey ancl thus his non appearance is'bona. has filed an affidavitjn support of thls ie reason assigned by the counselfor Ilowed and dismissai of the S.A. 'No. tscted that S.A. No. 418/2005 shal! be Sd/- Dhirendra IVIishra! Judge