1 2025:CGHC:19908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 380 of 2025 1 - Bihari Lal S/o Late Paras Nath Aged About 56 Years, 2 - Sita Bai D/o Late Paras Nath Aged About 67 Years, Both are R/o Village- Amhar, Baikunthpur, Koriya, District Koriya (C.G.). 3 - Sunita Kushwaha D/o Late Paras Nath Aged About 45 Years W/o Narendra Kumar, R/o Baikunthpur, Koriya District Koriya (C.G.). ... Applicants versus 1 - Ajay Kumar Kushwaha S/o Late Kailash Nath Kushwaha Aged About 43 Years, 2 - Arvind Kumar Kushwaha S/o Late Kailash Nath Kushwaha Aged About 38 Years, 3 - Smt. Shakuntala Kushwaha Wd/o Late Kailash Nath Kushwaha Aged About 43 Years, 4 - Phoolmat Wd/o Late Parasnath Aged About 77 Years, 5 - Ganeshi Bai Wd/o Late Raghunath Prasad Aged About 55 Years, 6 - Rajeshwari Wd/o Late Raghunath Prasad Aged About 45 Years, 7 - Nidhi Kushwaha D/o Late Raghunath Prasad Aged About 17 Years, 8 - Nitesh Kushwaha S/o Late Raghunath Prasad Aged About 14 Years, Respondents No.7 & 8 are minor Through Its Natural Guardian Rajeshwari, Wd/o Late Raghunath Aged 45 Years Prasad, VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.05.03 12:01:10 +0530 2 9 - Kanti Prasad S/o Late Parasnath Aged About 55 Years, 10 - Jamuna Prasad S/o Late Parasnath Aged About 50 Years, 11 - Dharmendra Kumar S/o Late Parasnath Aged About 45 Years, All the above respondents are R/o Village Amhar, Post- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 12 - Phoolkunwar Wd/o Sugreev Prasad Sahu Aged About 55 Years, 13 - Mira Bai D/o Sugreev Prasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years, 14 - Chandra Sekhar S/o Sugreev Prasad Sahu Aged About 36 Years, Respondents No.12 to 14 are R/o Village- Rampur, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 15 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Koriya, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 16 - Mankunwar Wd/o Heeralal Aged About 55 Years, 17 - Ram Charan S/o Late Heeralal Aged About 35 Years, 18 - Ram Vilas @ Nanku S/o Late Heeralal Aged About 32 Years, 19 - Harinath S/o Late Ramdulare Aged About 52 Years, 20 - Pancham S/o Late Ramdulare Aged About 55 Years, Respondents No.16 to 20 are R/o Village- Targava (Tilaidand), Post- Kashra, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 21 - Shani Bai D/o Late Ramdulare W/o Rajeshwar, R/o Village- Kashra, Post- Kashara, Police Station- Patna Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.). ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State/Respondent No.15 : Mr. Shailendra Shrma, PL 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing MCC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that a second appeal bearing number Second Appeal No.610/2022 was dismissed on 08.05.2024 for non- compliance of Court order dated 09.04.2024 in which one week's time had been granted to remove the default as pointed out by the Registry. He further contended that the applicants are people belonging to rural area and are not literate they do not have much resource to check and maintain about their case pending before the Court, therefore, they were having no knowledge about the peremptory order passed by this Court. The applicants came to know about the order when they contacted their counsel for taking the updated regarding their case and then it was informed to them that their case has been dismissed for non-payment of process fees. Promptly certified copy was applied on 27.03.2025 and the same was received on 29.03.2025 and then the instant application is filed. As the information regarding dismissal of the case has been received on 25.03.2025, the present application for restoration is within limitation if, limitation is 4 counted from the date of knowledge otherwise the afore mentioned ground is sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents have no objection on the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. 4. On the due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 317 days in filing the MCC is condoned. 5. On 09.04.2024, Second Appeal No.610 of 2022 was listed for orders on default. For this purpose, one week’s time was granted to remove the default, failing which, this appeal would be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. 6. Since the default pointed out by the Registry was not removed within stipulated time, the appeal was dismissed. 7. Taking into consideration the submission and cause shown in the application, I am inclined to restore Second Appeal No.610 of 2022. 8. Prayer for restoration of appeal is allowed and Second Appeal No.610 of 2022 is restored to its original number. 9. The MCC is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant