HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH VAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( C) No. 178/2007 PETITIONERS 1. Tirath Ram s/o Late Jaggnath Sahu, (Plaintif_fs1 aged about 75 years, occupation Agriculturist, 2. Pilu Ram s/o Late Jaggnath Sahu, occupation Agriculturst, 3. Deva Ram s/o Late Jaggnath Sahu, occupation Agriculturst, Surendra s/o Shri Daulal, occupation 4. Agriculturist, A11 Resident of village Bhusrenga, Tahsil Kurud, District— Dhamtari (C.G.) t" Versus RES‘PONDENTS 1 . (Defendants) Fagu Ram s/o Shri Dhiraji. 2. Mohani s/o Shri Dhiraji. Both caste Gond, R/o village Makardona Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (CG) 3. Collector, Dhamtari (CG) The Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (CG) 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presentz— Shri Vineet Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1 8r, 2, although notice served. None for the respondent No: 4. ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 06/08/20 10) Heard. 2. Order impugned dated 17/4/06 passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in appeal No. 234/A-23/O4-05 dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated 4/ 1'/05 passed by Collector, Dhamtari in revenue case No. 93/A-23/2000—01 whereby application tiled under Section 35(3) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short I I ‘the Code’) has been dismissed on the ground of limitation and insufficient cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vineet Pandey and Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No. 3 are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 10/6/04 when the case was called out for hearing before the Collector, Dhamtari petitioner No. 1 was ill and has not attended the Court, appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed for want of prosecution thereafter, application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 3/8/04 which was dismissed 0n the ground of insufficient cause and limitation. Definitely, limitation petition was challenged before the Board of Revenue and BOard of Revenue has also dismissed the appeal vide order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for their non— appearance when the appeal was called out for hearing before the Collector, Dhamtari on 10/6/04 but Collector, Dhamtari has failed to appreciate the cause shown by the petitioners. Definitely, petitioners have filed application under Section 35(3) of the Code after period of limitation but has also explained the delay in filing such petition, while dismissing the appeal Board of Revenue has also not considered the most material aspect of the case that only on the ground of limitation and sufficient cause right to adjudicate the claim of the party has been finally denied and both the Courts below were required to take liberal approach in considering the question of limitation and cause of absence of the petitioners with é § a view to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the parties on merits. On the other hand, learned counse for the State/respondent No. 3 l opposed the petition and submits that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the appeal and petition of the parties. Definitely, parties are required to explain the delay of each day but Court is required to take liberal approach in consideration such explanation With a View to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties on merits. In the present case, cause shown by the petitioners for non appearance i.e. ground of illness was sufficient cause in the present circumstances of the case. Petitioners had filed a petition under Section 35(3) of the Code after 23 days of its limitation which he tried to explain in the present circumstance of the case. Petitioners have succeeded in explaining the delay in filing the petition and its non-appearance when the case was called out for hearing. Consequently, orders impugned are not sustainable under the law. Both the orders are hereby set—aside. Case of the petitioners dismissed for want of prosecution on 10/6/04 by Collector, Dhamtari is restored in its original number. Petitioners shall present before the Collector, Dhamtari for further progress of the case on 13/9/2010. No order as to costs. f/E Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge