Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33663 (CHH)

MRS. MANGLA DESHMUKH v. COMMISSIONER (DURG)

MCC/710/2025 · 2025-07-16

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:33578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 710 of 2025 1 - Mrs. Mangla Deshmukh W/o Late Shri Rajesh Deshmukh Aged About 57 Years Presently Residing At L.I.G.-258, Mukta Nagar, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg C.G. And Are Permanent R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg C.G. 2 - Mr. Atul Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Rajesh Deshmukh Aged About 36 Years Presently Residing At L.I.G.-258, Mukta Nagar, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg C.G. And Are Permanent R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Commissioner (Durg) Municipal Corporation, Durg Office Behind New Bus Stand, Gaurav Path, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin – 491001 2 - Bhawan Adhikari (Durg) Municipal Corporation, Durg Office Behind New Bus Stand, Gaurav Path, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 491001 3 - Rahul Deshmukh S/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Gaurav Deshmukh S/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Versha Jeebhkate D/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Ankita Deshmukh D/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Prabha Deshmukh W/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner No. 2 : Mr. Atul Deshmukh, appears through V.C. (in-person) For Respondent no. 1 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 2 17.07.2025 1. This MCC has been filed for restoration of WPC No. 2834/2025, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.06.2025. 2. Petitioner no. 2 in person, contended that the counsel for the petitioners was not able to remain present before this Court on 13.06.2025 when the case was called, due to his ill health. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 did not opposed the present MCC for restoration of WPC No. 2834/2025. 4. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned therein, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for restoration of WPC No. 2834/2025. 5. Accordingly this MCC is allowed. Registry is directed to restore WPC No.2834 of 2025 to its original number. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza