'D' HiQijCOURT OF CHHATTISGARHLBII.ASPUR WntPetitionNo. 1404 of 2005 Etfitl^QSIS I- Vsnod Agrawal, S/o. Harl Rann Agrawal, aged about 44 years. 2. Liladhar Agrawat, S/o. Hari Ram Agrawaj, aged about 49 years, r/o. Nalia Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus ^sBon^Q! State of ChhattisQarh through Dtstrtct CoJSector, JanjgIr-Champa (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of Jndia) SB: Hon'bfe JVir. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Avinash K4fehra, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Atok Bakshi. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11th day ofNovember, 2008) With the consent of Searned coynsel for the partles, the matter is heard finaliy. 2) The Board of Revenue, Biiaspur, by order dated 27-10-2004 (Annexure P/1) passed in appeai No. 260/A-67/02-03 dismissea the appea! preferred against the order dated 17-1149^ (Annexure P/6) passed by the Addltional Cotlector, ^anjgir-Champa, in Case No. 431fo^ 67/97-98, whereby recovery of Rs.1,14,853.50 was directed to b@ made. The appea! was fsSed cn 26-6-2000 (Annexure P/8) aiong wsth an appSication for condonation of delay under the provisions of Sectlon 5 crf the Llmitation Act The ground stated in the application was that on 8-1 &- 1999 the petitioner couid not appear in the matter on account of a strike observed by the members of' the Bar Association, therefore, he was not aware of the next date of hQaring i.e., 17-11-1999. The case was proceeded ex parte on 8-10-1^9 and thereafter fie order was ^ss^ ^f^^ l01^ --^^s^ I- Raju passed on 17-11-19^. It was further stated that the appetlant came to know about the order on W-6'2000 for the first tlme and thereafter frie petstioner took immedlate steps and fjled an appeaj cn 26-6-2000 along with an appllcation for condonatlon of delay in filing the appeal- The Board of Revenue, after having considered the appiscatson of the petltion@r, came to conciusion that no document has been produced In support of the fact that there was a strike obsen/ed bythe Advocates on 8-10-19S©, 3) Be that as it may, the fact of strike obsen^edl by the members of the Bar Association may not be proved by the documents and that too it was dlfficult for a cjient to prove in absence of any paper or document glvers to hsm by the Bar Association. 4) Having regard to the facts and circumstences of the case, delay in fillng the appeal bdbre the Board of Revenue, Bilaspyr, Is condorsed^ Accordsngty, the petltlon is aJiowed. The matter is remitted to the Board of Revenue, BiJaspur, to consider and decide the case afresh on merit, In accordance with taw. Consequentty, M.W.P.No, 10©3of 2005 stands disposed of. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge