^J¥tetenSsne WWff Lr.»B^ "-"..a^ <K IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.C.C. N0. ^C^ OF 2011 (Arising out of Misc. Appeal (C) No. 338/2008) ^""^\\ ess/iu:.^^'\^v ?i''s...--""" NON-APPLICANTS APPLICANT : Smt. Gayatri Bai, Wife of Parasram Devdas, aged about 30 years, Resident of New Police Line, 18 Acre, Qu. No. A/10, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Kamtaram Sahu, son of Punau Ram Sahu, aged about 42 years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Shankar Nagar, Near Durga Mandir, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Public Health Engineering Department, . through: Chief Engineer, Rawan Bhatha, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C^G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Collector, Raipur, 'Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF MISC. APPEAL (C} N0. 338/2008 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 14.10.20n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI G. MINHAJUDDIN, J Applicant Non-applicants IVI.C.C.No. 807 of 2011 Smt Gayatri Bai, wife of Parasram Devdas, aged about 30 years, resident of Wew Police Line, 18 Acre, Qtr No.A/10, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS 1 Kamtaram Sahu, son of Punau Ram Sahu, aged about42 years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Shankar Nagar, near Durga Mandir, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 2 Public Health Engineering Department, through : Chief Engineer, Rawan Bhatha, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 3 State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Collector, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) Applicatipn for restoration of M.A.C. No.338/2008 Present : Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State / respondents No.2 and 3. "t-- ORDER (28th November, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ M.C.C.No.807 of 2011 \\ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the restoration petition. 2) The petitioner is seeking restoration of M.A.(C) No.338 of 2008 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 14.10.2011. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the ground&taken in the restoration petition, we are satisfied that the absence of thei petitioner's/ appellant's counsel on 14.10.2011, when M.A.(C) No.338 of 2008 was taken up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds. 4) M.C.C. No. 807 of 2011, therefore, is allowed and M.A.(C) No.338 of 2008 is restored to its original number.—^asssssE- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge nimmi