HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAéH BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No.191/2ob9 PETITIONER T.D. Ambavani, Proprietor—Topandas and Co., Dabra Road, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.), Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Smt. Ravinder Kaur, W/o Harbhajan Singh Rajpal R/o L.l.G. G-18 Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 2 State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Raipur APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.838I2003 Appearance: M _> H Shri P.R. Patankar, Courisei forthe petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ' ORAL ORDER (19.06.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. > Petitioner T.D. Ambavani has filed this petition for restoration of M.Cr.C. No.838/2003, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 14th of September 2007. On 14‘“ of September\\2007, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf f respondent No.1‘ when the matter was called for hearing. Some stay w granted in that case on 13.1 1 .2003. This Court)looking to the facts and circumstances) dismissed M.Cr.C. No.838/2003 by passing the folloWing order : “ Heard. On the last date of hearing i.e. 31.08.2007 also no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and looking to the nature of the stay granted in this case on 13.11.2003, I\\.\< this Court had directed for listing the matter in the next -g‘r _ \ \ ‘l t i I @. y . H week. But today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is left with no option, except to dismiss the petition. The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. The order of stay granted on 13.11.2003 stands vacated.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter was flled by an outstation counsel and Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate was engaged as the Iocal counsel. The listing of the case was never informed to the outside counsel, therefore, he could not attend mzthe date of hearing. He submits that perhaps Mr. Sahu could not notice the case listed in the cause list and nobody could appear on the date of hearing and the matter was dismissed. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State, this petition is allowed and M.Cr.C. No.838l2003 is restored to its original number. Consequently, this petition i.e. Cr.M.P. No.191/2009 stands //’ Sdi= Seam Kamat’ gia‘ba Eudge finally disposed of.