1 2025:CGHC:13960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 286 of 2025 1. Panchamdas, S/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 2. Kuvardas, S/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 3. Kartikdas, S/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 4. Ramdas, S/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 5. Bhagmati, S/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 6. Bhagwantin, D/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 7. Bajarihin, D/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 8. Kuvariya, D/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 9. Mankuvar, D/o Umenddas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 10. Sukritdas, S/o Mohandas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 11. Sukhsagar Das, S/o Mohandas, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Appellants/Applicants versus 1. Dhandas, S/o Ramdin Das, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Janjgir Champa. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants/Applicants : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anu Mishra, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 24/03/2025 1. Heard on M.C.C., application for restoration of MA No.91/2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2025 for want of prosecution. DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 27.02.2025, counsel appearing for the applicant was engaged before another Bench, thus, he 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 applicants want to contest the case on merits, thus the instant MCC may be allowed. 3. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents have no objection to allow the instant M.C.C. 4. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, which is well supported by an affidavit, instant MCC is hereby allowed. 5. Registry is directed to restore MA No.91/2017 {Panchamdas & Others Versus Dhandas & Another} in its original number. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge