^' (D In the High Court ofJudicature at Bilaspur Chhattisgarh i;^ >i<^ Appellant/Petitioner -,1. Misc. Appeal No. .%.^/^ z^ ^ 'y' Heera Lal S/o Koddi Gond Age About-45 Yrs. Son Sai S/o Birjha Gond Age - 40 Yrs. Son Raj S/o Birjha Gond Age-38Yrs. Baiga S/o Birjha Gond Age-35Yrs. Tula Ram S/o Birjha Gond Age - 32 Yrs. Tulsi S/o Birjha Gond Age - 30 Yrs. Janta S/o Heera Lal Gond Age - 25 Yrs. All resident ofVillage-Chanta, P.S.-Kukdur, Tahsil-Pandaria, Distt.-Kabirdham, (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1 .^ Upasu Ram S/o Sahu Gond ^^ Age-46Yrs. 2. ^ Jai Singh S/o Sahu Gond ^^\ Age-40Yrs. Both resident ofVillage-Chanta, P.S.-Kukdur, Tahsil-Pandaria, Distt.-Kabirdham, (C.G.) \^- Misc. Agpeal under order 43'Rule l(t) of C.P.C. against the orders date^24-03-2006 passed by the distt.Judge Kabirdham in MJ.C. No.- 06/2005 filed by and against the parties mentioned in title. ^-F % HiGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No.9SOof2008 ADDeSlants/Petitioners Heera Lai and others Respondents Versus Upasu Ram and another (MJSC. AppeaS under order 43 Ruis 1 (t) of C.P.C.) (SB : Hon'bSe Mr. Prashant Kismar Misfira, J.) Present:- Mr.Pawan Kesharwsnt, counsel for the appeliants. None present forthe respondents.though served. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13th August, 2010) 1. The appeliants had preferred Civij Appeai No.23A/04 in the Court of DJsfcrict Judge, Kabirdham which was dismissed forwant of prosecution on 21.6.200^ The appeiiants moved sn appiication for restoration of the appeal under Order 41 Ruie 19 ofthe C.P.C. on 14.7.2005. The Court beiow has dismissed the said appSscation for restoration of civii appeai. 2. Lsamed counsei for the appeSiants has argued that the Court below has adopted pedantic and hyper-technicaj approach while deaiing with the appilcation for restoration and the same shoufd have been aiiowed in the interestofjustice. 3. On perusal of the appiication for restoration, it would appear that the ground urged for the absence of the appeljapt or hls counsei v^/as that arguing counsei was not well and before junior counsei couSd reach to the Court and attend the caii, the matter was aiready dismissed. The Court beiow has dismlssed the restoration appilcatlon on the ground that medicaS certificate regarding iiiness of Senior Advocate has not been submitted. 4. Sn the oplnion of this Court, the Court below has commltted an error by not appiication for restoration of clvii appeai. it was not proper on ths part of the Court belovi/ to have expected for medlcat certifEcate •••^// .s^ B!- -2- s. regarding iiiness of arguing counsei when the restoration appifoation was supported with an affidavlt of junior counsei in support of the fact that Senior Advocate was not weil. 5. Sn view of above, the order impugned is set aside. Civll Appeai No.23A/04 in the fiie of the District Judge, Kabirdham ss restored to its onginal number. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge