Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11634 (CHH)

DINESH AGRAWAL v. REETA GHOSAL

MCC/256/2025 · 2025-08-24

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:42837 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 256 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Agrawal S/o Balkishan Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Baraejpara, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Reeta Ghosal W/o Samarnath Ghoshal Aged About 67 Years Village- Subhash Nagar, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Office- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ranjeet Mandal S/o Late Shri Baburam Mandal Aged About 58 Years Village- Subhash Nagar, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Office- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajendra Prasad Sahu S/o Late Beni Prasad Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Hospital Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Office- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Jigyasa Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.08.26 11:37:54 +0530 2 Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. Heard on M.C.C., application for restoration of FA No.13/2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2025 for want of prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 18.02.2025, counsel appearing for the applicant was engaged in another Court, thus, she could not appear when the case was taken up for hearing, therefore, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence, the said mistake was bonafide and the applicant wants to contest the case on merits, thus the instant MCC may be allowed. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, instant MCC is hereby allowed. 4. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to restore FA No.13/2020, (Dinesh Agrawal vs. Reeta Ghoshal and Others) in its original number. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi