LL'EB m COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASFUH ')"~?. ^ ^ -J^K .C.C. No. _/2010 APPLICANT: /f:wsms^^syi ^•-•^^^^- ^$^>^' ^ AA<l*a< -Versus- ..Indrajeet Smgh Bedi, aged a.bout years, son of Slii-i Jyoti Smgh Bedi, R/o village Seetapm-, Talisil Seetapm', District Sm'guja ^ <ESPONDENTS: ^- 2... ,^. ^" . 4. ^' Na.gmaii, son of Himda Kanwar, resident of village Aaiiiatoli, Talisil Seetapur, Talisil Seetaptu', Distn.ct Sui'guja (CG) Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Ambikapiir, tlirough its Manager, Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Ambikapur, District Sm'guja (CG) Collector, District Surguja (CG) Board of Revenue, through its Presidmg Officer, CIiliattisgaiii Board of Revenue^ Bilaspur (CG) FOR RESTORATIOH OE. WRIT PETITION 10 N0.2773/2007 DISMISSED OH 9t^!ULY, 2009 FOR HON- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.N0.82of2010 ^ Applicant Non-applicants Versus Indrajeet Singh Bedi Nagman & Others Arun APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE WRIT PETITION (C) N0,2773/2007 DISMISSED ON 9TH JULY, 2009 FOR NON-APPEARANCE (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate for the appticant. Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofJuly, 2010) 1. The matter was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9th July, 2010. An application for restoration along with application for condonation of delay was filed on 15/02/2010 after a delay of 191 days. 2. The ground raised by the applicant that the he could not appear because the name was not shown in the cause list, cannot be accepted on a simple ground that firstly, he has not supplied a copy ofthe cause list indicating that his name was not shown and secondly, even if his name was not published in the cause list, he ought to have seen name ofthe parties in the list. 3. In the application for condonation of delay, no reason has been assigned except that the applicant contacted the counsel and-therefore, counsel asked him to give vakalatnama and in such process there was a delay of 191days. Looking from any angle, it does not seem to be justified and the petitioner has failed to prove his case. 4. This application for condonation of delay in fiting the MCC is dismissed and accordingly, the M.C.C. is also dismissed. _——— 1 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri 1 Judge