Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35337 (CHH)

TEJRAM DEAD THROUGH LRS. MAHENDRA KUMAR JANGDE v. BHAGWAN KUMAR

MCC/828/2025 · 2025-08-13

Shri Radhakishan Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 828 of 2025 1 - Tejram Dead Through Lrs. Mahendra Kumar Jangde S/o Late Tejram Jangde Aged About 44 Years, Occupation Labour 2 - Dharmendra Kumar Jangde S/o Late Tejram Jangde Aged About 41 Years Occupation Labour 3 - Jitendra Kumar Jangde S/o Late Tejram Jangde Aged About 39 Years, Occupation Labour All are R/o Village Kutrabod P.O. Odekera, Tahsil And P.S. Jaijepur District - Janjgri - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants/Appellants versus 1 - Bhagwan Kumar S/o Puniram Aged About 50 Years 2 - Firtin Bai W/o Bhagwan Kumar Aged About 45 Years 3 - Vikas Kumar S/o Bhagwan Kumar Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Bhagwan Kumar S/o Puniram All are R/o Village Kutrabod Tahsil Jaijepur Police Station Jaijepur District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents/Non-applicants For Applicants : Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Dipak Kumar Singh, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. Heard on I.A.No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the M.C.C. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this M.C.C. is barred by two days. 3. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants and for the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay in filing the M.C.C,. is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the Registry has Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.08.14 16:51:17 +0530 2 pointed out that certified copy of impugned order (Annexure A/1 is not filed and prays orally that the same may be ignored. 5. On due consideration of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the default as pointed out by the Registry is dropped. 6. Heard on M.C.C. for restoration of MAC No.1148/2012 dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2025 for non-prosecution. 7. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the M.C.C. it is allowed and the MAC No.1148/2012 is restored to its original number. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani