\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DWKION BEKCH CORAM; HCMt'BI.B BSR. T.P. 8HAia«A<( HOM'BtB MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ. APPEUANTS (Petitioners) M.C.C. No. 562/2010 RATANDEEP aged about 35 years S/o Shri Dffip Achaxya DILB> ACHARYA S/o Late Shri Ganpat Rao Achaiya Both Co-Owners ofTractar No. 0.0. 07 N 0711 R/o Village MiutaTah & PoUce Station Navagarh Distfc Dwg (C.Q.). RESPONDENTS VBRSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. BISAKHA BAI aged atoout 38 years Widwo of Late Bholaram Sahu. KU. REVATI aged about 20 years D/o Late Bholaram Sahu. KU. PRABHA aged about 18 years D/o Late Bholaram Sahu VIKRAM ased etbout 13 years S/o Late Bholaram Sahu. MONU aged about 08 years S/o Late Bhcdaiam Sahu KU. SEEMA ased about 05 years D/o Late Bholaram Safau Respondents 4 to 6 smce mmors Thiuu^i mother Sait. BisaKha bai Respondents 1 to 6 permMient residents of viflage MURTA Poltee station and Tahsil Navagarh District Durg (C.G.). (Status respondcnts 1 to 6 claimants befca-e Motor Vehicle CIalms Tribunal Bemetara (C.Q.). SHRI PANCHURAM aged about 44 years S/o Roopram Vishwahrma Driver R/o village Murta P.S. & Tah. Navagarh Dlstfc Durg (C.G.). BAJAJ ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMFTED Shiv Mohan Bhawan Wdhansabba Road, Pandri Raipur (C.O.). y 's''-::'s':!"^fs^ysw. & APPUCATION FOR RE8TORATK1>N OF M.A.O WO. aaS/aOtO. DisanssEa? FQR WANT OF PROSEGUTION ON 20.(».2Qio. Present- Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for fhe appeUaats/applicants. Respondents not noticed. 3. ^.4. ORALORDBR (Pasaedoa 20/10/SSOKq The foUowme iudgment of the Court was oassedby T.P. Sharma. J:- „ Heard on I.A. No. 01 application to hear the matter without certtfied copy of the order impugned. Qn due consideration I.A. No. 01 is aBowed. Also heard on I.A. No.02 application for cone(6nati<ai ofdelay ta filing fhe restoration applicatiori of (he M.A._ (C) No. 215/2010 dismissed for want of prosecution vlde order dated ^ 20/8/2010. On due consideration I.A. No. 02 is aBowed. Delay in filing the restoration application 1s hereby condoned. Also heard on restoration application. On due consideration we are satlsfied that applicants have succeeded in explamixig fhe cause of non appearance when the M.A. (C) No. 215/2010 was caUed out for hwirmg. Consequentty, restoration application is allowed. M.A. (C) No. 215/2010 dismissed for want <rf prosecution 1s restored in its origmal number. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P, Sharma Judge Sd;- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^l-