Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22782 (CHH)

Smt. Sharda Tarar v. Mukesh Tarar Anors

MCC/651/2013 · 2025-03-05

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:10675-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 651 of 2013 • Smt. Sharda Tarar, W/o Somnath Tarar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ratnabandha, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Applicant versus 1. Mukesh Tarar, S/o Late Somnath Tarar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ratnabandha, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant/Applicant : Mr. Mayank Gupta, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2013, application for condonation of delay in filing the M.C.C. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, which is well supported by an affidavit, I.A. No.1/2013 is allowed and the delay of 13 days in filing the M.C.C. is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on M.C.C., application for restoration of MA No.759/2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2010 for want of prosecution, as counsel for the applicant pleads no instructions. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that counsel could not contact the applicant, in that situation counsel was unable to argue the case DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA 2 finally, thus, on that day he pleaded no instructions 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 want to contest the case on merits, thus the instant MCC may be allowed. 5. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, which is well supported by an affidavit, instant MCC is hereby allowed. 6. Registry is directed to restore MA No.759/2004 {Smt. Sharda Tarar Versus Mukesh Tarar & Another} in its original number. 7. Accordingly, instant M.C.C. stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge