H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Peti‘tion (Art. 227,.)VN0.7621 of 2010 PETITIONERSI: (Appellants) 1. RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. V.R. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Ramkumar, S/o Lalit Prasad Pandey, aged about 42 years. Mst. Sudha, W/o Lochan Prasad Pandey, aged about 3O years. Yadav Prasad, S/o Natwar Prasad Pandey, aged about 7O years. Jugal Kishore @ Suresh Kumar, S/o Digambar Prasad Pandey, aged about 35 years. Nand Kishore @ Jitendra Kumar, S/o Digambar Prasad Pandey, aged about 30 years. Mst. Santi Bai, W/o Digambar Prasad andey, aged about 62 years. Pilalal, S/o Natwar Prasad Pandey, aged about 65 years. Petitioners No.1 to 7: Occupation Agricuiture, R/o Village Tandapara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). Gourishankar, S/o Gendaial Pandey, aged about 60 years. Akshay Kumar, S/o Gendaiai Pandey, aged about 55 years. Babulai, S/o Gendalal Pandey, aged about 50 years. Ghanshyam Lal, S/o Gendalai Pandey, 11. aged about 53 years. Petitioners No. 8 to 11: Occupation Agricuiture, R/o Viliage Kotikunda, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). Petitioners/No.2 to 11 are appearing through their power of attorney holder Ramkumar, S/o Lalit Prasad Pandey i.e. petitioner No.1. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raigarh (CG). 10. {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} P Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (15-1 1-201 1) . l.A.No.1 is allowed. Documents be taken on record. . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 12-7- 2010 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.22/2009 affirming the order dated 30-9-2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class—II, Kharsiya in Civil Suit No.17/2009, whereby the application for restoration of suit dismissed for want of prosecution, filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, has been dismissed. . i have heard Iearned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, the order dated 30—9-2009, copy of the application and other documents. . Learned counset for the petitioners frankly admits that the petitioners and counsel were not diligent, rather they were negligent in prosecuting the suit before the Court, but by dismissing the suit and dismissing the application for restoration of suit, rights of the petitioners have been finally denied. The petitioners herein have filed suit against the State for declaration of title and correction of revenue record. lf opportunity of hearing is not provided to the petitioners, they may put to irreparable loss. . On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf the State/ respondent opposed the petition. . Both the orders impugned and the manner in which the petitioners herein have prosecuted the suit show their complete recklessness and reluctance in prosecuting the suit, but considering the fact that by not providing opportunity they may be finally debarred from prosecuting their right, one opportunity would be jLLsfandproper to the petitioners. . Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC is hereby quashed and Civil Suit No.39A/2007 is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/— to the State/respondent within fifteen days from today. No order as to costs. /’ Sdl- ' T.P. Sharma . . Judge Some x