(3EFORE; THE H01\ 6LE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bencii APPLICANT M.C.C. No. 5o3 /2011 Arising out of M.A.No. 1681 of 2008 Sint. Chaiti Bai, aged about 49 years, widow of Bhagwani Verina, R/o. Manpur Ward No.02 Bemetara, Tahsil, Beinetara, Dista-ict Durg (C.G.) ^A yy^ Versus Appellant ^^^: 'y^~ /^- j^y/^ ^^At>PLICANTS :1) Topsir^hChandrakar,agedabout37 ^'(j^iondents years, S/o. Nathuram Chandrakar, l^lon-applicants Cultivator, R/o. Ranipura, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) :2) Lakhan Singh, aged 24 years, S/o. Shri Hirawa Ram, R/o. Rampura, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) * :3) Smt. Ramkali Wd/o. Kamlesh Verma, aged 30 years, Housewife :4) Ku. Jileshwari, D/o. Late Kamlesh Verma, aged about 6 years, minor through guardian mother Smt.Ramkali, Wd./o.Kamlesh Venna, Both R/o. Village Pikari, Manpur, Ward No.2 Bemetara, Dist.Durg (CG.) Presently R/o. Village Jeeya Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Kespondents Applicants /^^^ s?l's-^!%, APPLICATION FOR RESTO_RATION OF M.A.No.1681 of2008 DISMISSED IN DEFAULT ON 18. 11.2009 \" vvni-, Appellant -aDDlicants Applicants Smt Chaiti Bai aged 49 years widow of Bhagwani Verma, R/o Manpur Ward No.02, Bemetara Tahsil, Semetara, District Durg (CG) Topsingh Chandrakar, aged about 37 years S/o Nathuram Chandrakar, Cultivator R/o Rampura Tahsi Bemetara Distrcit Durg (CG) Lakhan Singh aged 24 years son of Shri Hirawa Ram Chandrakar, R/o Rampura, Tahsit Bemetara, District !,1 Smt Ramkali Widow of Kamlesh Verma aged 30 years, housewife Jileshwari D/o late Karnalesh Verma, aged about 6 years, mlnor throuah auardian mother Smt Ramkali wd/o Kamlesh Verma Both residents of villags Pikari Manpur Ward No.2, Bemetara District Durg (CGl Presentfy • R/o Viliage Jeeya Tahsi! Semefara District Durg (CG) 'resent : ; Shri Ramkumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. MCCNo.509of2011 r The following order of the Court was passed by Shri Ramkumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on i.A. No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the de!ay in filing the restoration petition. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restors 3) I.A. No.01/2011, therefore, fh?s rp^tnr^ti ^S^M^N 1 h*? t<h/l* 1 LS V^ 1 E 1^»<F I E^n/i lon petition. iowed and the deiay in filin< 4) Shri Ramkumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the restoration petition. 5) The petitioner is seeking restoration of MAC No.1681 of 2008 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 18.11.2009. 3) On due considsration of the submissions of learned counsei for ths petitioner arsd the grounds taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitioner's/ appellant's counsel on 18:11.2009, when MAC No.1681 of 2008 was taken up s ailowed and MAC for hearina was based on bona fide grounds. 7) 509 of' 2011, N'o. 1681 of 2008 Is restored to its oriainaLaumber. Sd/- Ghief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge