1 2025:CGHC:33992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 76 of 2017 1 - Mohanlal (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 19-06-2025 1.1 - Meera Bai W/o Mohan Lal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Suloni Ward No. 2, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda District - Sakti (C.G.) 1.2 - Saraswati Gavel D/o Mohan Lal W/o Ajeet Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Banjari P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda District - Sakti (C.G.) 1.3 - Shekhar Kumar Gavel S/o Mohan Lal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Suloni Ward No. 2 P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti, Tahasil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 18/07/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, in pursuance of application filed by appellant, the then Collector of District Janjgir- Champa (CG) had referred the case of appellants under the provisions RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.07.22 16:14:41 +0530 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was registered as MJC No.62/2005 on 07.04.2005. After framing issues, the case was listed for evidence on 08.11.2005, thereafter, various opportunities were granted to the appellant to adduce evidence. Subsequently, on 12.12.2006, aforesaid MJC was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that the appellant filed application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for restoration of MJC No.62/2005 for condoning the delay in filing restoration application, which was registered as MJC No.34/2016. That application has been dismissed by Second Upper District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa vide impugned order dated 06.07.2017 declining to condone inordinate delay, as such, application under Section 5 of the limitation act was dismissed, consequently, MJC was also dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is villager and not knowing about the law and procedure, therefore, he could not contacted his counsel, thus delay of more than 9 years occurred in filing restoration application of MJC is bona fide, but the Second Upper District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, without considering aforesaid facts, has dismissed the MJC No.34/2016, hence he prayed that it may be set aside and restoration application filed by appellant may be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the impugned order is well reasoned order as there is huge delay of more than 9 years in filing restoration application, therefore, learned Second Upper District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa has not committed any error in law in dismissing the restoration application along with MJC No.34/2016. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of record shows that MJC No.62/2005 was fixed for evidence on 08.11.2005, thereafter, 16 opportunities were granted to the appellant to adduce his evidence, but apart from filing affidavit statement of his own and his witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, neither he or his witnesses present for cross-examination nor adduced any evidence and ultimately he and his counsel remained absent on 12.12.2006, therefore, the Additional District Judge, Sakti was compelled to dismiss MJC No.62/2005 for want of prosecution. Further, after dismissal of aforesaid MJC in the year 2006, restoration application was filed in the year 2016 i.e. after more than 9 years. The party, who was in slumber for such long period, cannot claim any bonafideness. Even cause of delay shown by appellant is also not found sufficient to condone such huge delay of more than 9 years. 6. On due consideration, I do not find any merit in instant misc. appeal, hence, the impugned order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Second Upper District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in MJC No.34/2016 is upheld and consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed at motion stage. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 8. Record of the court below be returned forthwith along with copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar