1 2025:CGHC:1732-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 907 of 2024 Indulata Gore W/o Jaishree Gore, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Masniakala, Tahsil - Sakti, Earlier District Janjgir- Champa, Present District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jaishree Gore S/o Late Shri Dorilal Gore, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Telicoat, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 10/01/2025 Per Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. Heard. 1. The present MCC has been filed seeking restoration of FA (MAT) No. 248 / 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.02.2023. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 543 days in filing the restoration application. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that her earlier counsel has withdrawn the appeal bearing FA (MAT) No. 248 of 2022 without consent of the applicant / petitioner. The said counsel also did not inform about withdrawal of the said appeal and the petitioner came to know about the same in the month of April, 2024. It is further contended that since that FA (MAT) No. 248 of 2022 was withdrawn by her counsel without her consent and without informing her and the applicant came to know about said withdrawal belatedly, therefore, he submits that delay of 543 days occurred in filing the restoration application is unintentional and bonafide, as such, same may be condoned and FA (MAT) No. 248 /2022 may be restored to its original number. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband vehemently objected the contention of learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner. While referring to the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh in Execution Case No. F-12/2022, he submits that applicant/petitioner came to know about withdrawal of the said petition on 04.03.2023 itself, on that date, she had conceded before the Family Court that she will hand-over the child after the Holi festival. Although, in subsequent hearing before the Family Court, Raigarh, she did not appear, but aforesaid facts clearly show that FA (MAT) No. 248 of 2022 had been withdrawn with her consent, therefore, neither she raised objection before the Family Court about withdrawal of the petition nor filed application for restoration of FA (MAT) No. 248 / 2022 for about one and half year. The applicant has filed instant M.C.C. by concealing such material facts. He further submits that applicant/petitioner has failed to assign sufficient reasons for condoning the huge delay of 543 days in filing the instant restoration application. Therefore, it may be rejected. 3 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The respondent / husband has filed order sheets of Execution Case No. F-12/2022 of Family Court, Raipur, which show that on 04.03.2023, applicant / petitioner and respondent had appeared before the Family Court. The contents of aforesaid order-sheets clearly shows that applicant / petitioner came into the knowledge on 04.03.2023 itself that FA (MAT) No. 248 of 2022 filed by her, has been withdrawn by her advocate. The aforesaid order-sheets also reveal that on that date, she (petitioner) herself had admitted to handover the child in the custody of respondent / husband. 7. Perusal of the order sheets does not reflect that on that date, applicant has stated before the Family Court that said FA (MAT) No. 248 / 2022 has been withdrawn by her advocate without her consent or without her knowledge. As per record, she came to know about said withdrawal on 04.03.2023, despite that she filed instant M.C.C. for restoration after about more than 1½ years. These facts show that withdrawal of FA (MAT) No. 248 / 2022 was made with her consent and her knowledge, but she has concealed aforesaid facts in her M.C.C. for restoration of FA (MAT) No. 248 / 2022. 8. Aforesaid facts shows that true facts has not been mentioned by the applicant / petitioner neither in her application nor in her affidavit, rather she has filed M.C.C. for restoration of FA (MAT) No. 248 of 2022 concealing material facts. [[ 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 543 days in filing the instant M.C.C. / restoration application, as the same is not found to be bonafide. As such, I.A. No. 4 01/2024, i.e. an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is rejected. 10. Consequently, the M.C.C. is also rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Ruchi/Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.15 11:46:53 +0530