1 MCC No. 302 of 2024 [ CGHC010131742024 2026:CGHC:33026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 302 of 2024 1. Baran Rajwar S/o Mohan Rajwar Patel (Since Dead), Through Legal Representative:- 1(i) Abhiyaso, W/o Late Baran Rajwar, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji (Darima Road), P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 1(ii) Manik Prasad S/o Late Baran Rajwar (Since Dead), Through Legal Representative:- 1(ii)(a) Dharam Prasad S/o Late Manik Prasad, Aged About 37 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji (Darima Road) P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. 1(ii)(b) Sarita Rajwade D/o Late Manik Prasad, Aged About 34 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji (Darima Road), P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. 1(ii)(c) Deepak Prasad S/o Late Manik Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji (Darima Road), P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. 1(iii) Sahdeo S/o Late Baran Rajwar, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji Darima Road), P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. 1(iv) Shivnarayan S/o Late Baran Rajwar, Aged About 42 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji (Darima Road), P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MCC No. 302 of 2024 [ 1(v) Manoranjan S/o Late Baran Rajwar, Aged About 40 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Knathi P.O. Karji (Darima Road) P.S.And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. ... Applicants versus 1. Kalam Kunwar S/o Mohan Rajwar, Aged About 74 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kanthi, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh Govt. Through Collector Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicants :- Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents :- None. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30.07.2026 1. By way of the instant MCC, the applicants seeking restoration of S.A. No.332 of 2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order of this Court’s dated 04.03.2014. 2. Mr. Harsh Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that immediately after the dismissal of second appeal, counsel tried to contact with the sole appellant, but the same could not be done as the sole appellant died on 25.08.2015. He would also submit that when application under Section 178 of the Land Revenue Code was issued and after receiving notice, the counsel came to know about the legal heirs of the 3 MCC No. 302 of 2024 [ appellant and, thereafter, he made contact with the legal heirs of the deceased appellant and filed MCC for restoration of second appeal. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and after going through the application, it appears that S.A. No.332 of 2002 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.03.2014 and after more than one year the sole appellant died on 25.08.2015. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that since the sole appellant died on 25.08.2015, communication could not be made, however, it appears that even before the appellant's death, there had been no communication between the deceased appellant and the counsel regarding the case and even otherwise, the said delay of more than one years has not been satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the applicant got to know about the contact of legal heirs after receiving notice of application under Section 178 of the Land Revenue Code on 30.01.2023, however, the present MCC has been filed on 15.04.2024 after lapse of more than an year after knowing the contact of the applicants herein and the delay of more than one year has also not been explained. Even from year 2015 to 2023 i.e. 8 years, nothing has been stated by the learned counsel applicants that what efforts had been taken by applicants and the counsel to know the status of second appeal. Since the applicants failed to 4 MCC No. 302 of 2024 [ show any "sufficient cause" for such an extraordinary delay i.e. 3663 days i.e. almost 10 years, the instant MCC is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit