1 2025:CGHC:46556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 421 of 2025 1 - Surjeetlal Sharma S/o Late Daulatram Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o Quarter No. 261, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, Tehsil Katghora, Presently R/o- Plot No.- 344/3, Sharda Vihar, Near Muda Dai Mandir, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Dalbir Kaur W/o Sardar Lakvinder Singh R/o Ramsagarpara, Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. Counsel for the applicant is heard on restoration application. 2. The applicant is seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 131 of 2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.09.2024. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that absence of the counsel on 12.09.2024 when First Appeal No. 131 of 2027 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds, therefore, order dated 12.9.2024 may be recalled and the first appeal No. 131/2007 may be restored in its original number. 2 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent /decree holder submits that after dismissal of first appeal for want of prosecution, execution of decree has already been carried out and sale deed has been executed in pursuance of the order passed by Executing Court. He further submits that petitioner has not challenged the order of execution, hence, instant M.C.C. may be dismissed. 5. When specific question was posed to the counsel for respondent / decree holder that prior to registration of registered sale deed in compliance of decree, whether notice was served to the applicant/ judgment debtor by the concerned Court, then he apprised the court that no notice was served to the applicant /judgment debtor. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. First Appeal No. 131 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution on 12.09.2024. Vide impugned judgment & decree dated 31.07.2007, learned trial Court had allowed the civil suit filed by respondent/ plaintiff / decree holder and directed appellant /defendant to execute registered sale deed within two month from date of impugned judgment dated 31.07.2007, which was challenged by the appellant / judgment debtor by filing First Appeal No. 131 / 2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order 12.09.2024. After order dated 12.9.2024 passed by this Court, decree has been executed and sale deed in respect of suit property has been registered without serving notice to the appellant / judgment debtor by Executing Court, whereas, as per decree granted against judgment debtor, even after dismissal of appeal filed by petitioner/plaintiff, learned Executing Court ought to have served notice to judgment debtor for compliance of 3 decree, but without serving him such notice, sale deed has been executed, which cannot be appreciated. 8. In view of aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent and discussion made by this Court on 2.9.2025 while considering the application for condonation of delay in filing MCC, this M.C.C. is allowed and Registry is directed to restore the fist appeal No. 131 / 2007 in its original number. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.18 10:47:06 +0530