rr- -HC-22 ^ 'S^i ^i^Krt^, ^nl^^Ko, f®KrtK4^< ^nif^r ^ra? __b4&<>...AHyLLo.<°_ WIWg^f^-t-?>--l-^-V-V^""^ 200 'I^ST' 3TT^T^T l^r11c^ <fl1^1^ 5r»<-iict) <ii^a ^\^\ ^W\^K <M^a M.C.C.Ho. 444 0V 2UUb FSiiude Beaeh: Hon*Me M APPLICANT Appellant Vs NON- APPLICANTS Respondents h cr)i<if<n<fl'i ^H<vff"? [^<<1 <P»1^1< ^r ^irf^m ^n^r . Justice Dliiareudra Mtelural Nagar) Mal, S/o Lahrimal, aged about| 75 years^ R/o Lendhra, Tahsi} Sarangarh, Distt, Raigarh (C.G.)| Ghan^ S/o Kj R/o C| Distri^ State Brancl hyam Das Agrawal iinjlal Agrawal, khoteniathpara, Sarangarh, ;t Raigarh (C.G.) Bank of India, te Leixdhra, Thasil Raigarh Throujgh Branch Manager, State Raiga State Bank of India Leudra rh (C.G.) Bank of India Braucpi Sarangarh Tahsi Throu Saraii State Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh^ Igh Branch Manager garh Branch, Raigarh (C.G.) Baak of India Agric^iltural Development Branch Sarax^garh Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt,) Raigarh, Troug^h Branch Manager Agric^iltural Development Branch Sarar(garh, Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Raigajrh Kshetriya Gramin Bank Bran^ Saraij Throij Raigaj Braa<| |h Sarangarh, Thasil ^garh, District Raigarh igh Branch Manager rh Kshetriya Graiain Bank Sarangarh, Thasil Sara4garh, District Raigarh XI-HC-22 ^i^T^T ^Jcb ^ST s^+ii<=b 1Mf^a p»" + ^ <3~^ ^IMtd^, ^Til^Ko, {^<ni<iy 3H^T XR^ WTOT<g^q|^-—-<—-—---<-<-^F^ 200 fcl^^T'-z- S^T^RiTW^f^T State^ Branchl Blank Sarangtirh Throug|h: Bank o| State o| (Now Througpi: Raigari ofIndia Baramkela, Tahsil District Raigarh, Branch Manager, State Baranikela Madhya Pradesh C|^hattisgarh) L: The Collector (C.G.) 2.11.2007 Miss Sharmila Singhai, Shri S.N. Nande, Coun^ Heard, This petition has bej M.A.NQ. 1225/ 1997, which on 24.2.2005 (Annexure A-l| Learned counseL for during peiidency of this p< before the Court below prosecution, However, she 4 moved au application for which has been dismissed pending before the trial Coujrt Takiag in to considera against which Miscellaneou filed before this Court al cr»i^I<rt<flt *ii^<riT1? TQ^\ <Pn<^i< ^3TP<R3^T Counsel for the applicant, el for the non-applicants. ?n filed for restoration of as dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution. the applicant subiaits that ;tition, original suit pending was dismissed for want of lubmits that the plaintiff has 'estoration of the Civil Suit md restoratiQH proceeding is tion that the iiapugned order Appeal No. 1225/1997 was eady stands dismissed, the n..;i .^^%fe>.. •% •^S^ 1.XI-HC-22; '3^^1F?I^?, ^^l^Ko, f^<nwy ^I^?T 'tl^R NW<^1 ^N1<tiw" ^*' <<<<'<'<*'^<<"*>*'W^ 20° •^^" 3qi^T-^T R^N»^I^T sh*ii<ih Mlia \; + /?'- ^I^T ^i^T^clTW ^rf^T instant application has beco^ae the same is dismissed as ha^ing applic^nt However, the application for revivalifthe t^i<<Ia<DTi w^dT^ FG<<:) <fa<$i< ^r3?NH^^T infructuous and therefore become infructuous. may file appropriate sontirigency so arises. ^ ____^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge