1 2025:CGHC:1092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1017 of 2024 1 - Maharaj Singh Verma S/o Dukhuram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kobiya Police Station Bemetara District Durg Now District Bemetara, C.G. At Present R/o Risali Basti P.S. Newai Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 2 - Jitendra Verma S/o Shri Maharaj Singh Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kobiya Police Station Bemetara District Durg Now District Bemetara, C.G. At Present R/o Risali Basti P.S. Newai Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 3 - Ku. Karina Verma D/o Maharaj Singh Verma Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Maharaj Singh Verma, R/o Village Kobiya Police Station Bemetara District Durg Now District Bemetara, C.G. At Present R/o Risali Basti P.S. Newai Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 4 - Dhirendra Verma S/o Maharaj Verma Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Maharaj Singh Verma, R/o Village Kobiya Police Station Bemetara District Durg Now District Bemetara, C.G. At Present R/o Risali Basti P.S. Newai Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 5 - Ku. Durga Verma D/o Maharaj Verma Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Maharaj Singh Verma, R/o Village Kobiya Police Station Bemetara District Durg Now District Bemetara, C.G. At Present R/o Risali Basti P.S. Newai Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. --- Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Pushpendra Tiwari S/o Chandrika Prasad Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madika P.S. Amarpur District Sidhi (M.P.) At Present R/o Baikunthdham Mother Terea Nagar Near Water Tank Chhawni Bhilai Police Station Chhawni Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 - M/s Bansal Borewells Proprietor Amar Agrawal S/o Badri Prasad Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 151 Police Station Saraswati Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Registered And Head Office At Oriental House Post Box No. 7037, A 25/27 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi 120002 Divisional Manager Divisional Officer Parmanand Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk G E Road Durg, C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08/01/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of this Miscellaneous Civil Case which is for the restoration of the MAC No. 1163/2013 which was dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. The application for condonation of delay is heard without issuing notice to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 as perusal of the award which is subject matter of challenge in MAC No. 1163/2013 would show that the liability to set-aside the amount of compensation is upon the owner and injured jointly. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the case was listed on 13.05.2019, the case could not be noticed and it was dismissed for want of prosecution. He contended that when the claimants approached him and case could not be listed for long time, upon verification, it revealed that the case was dismissed for default and immediately thereafter, this application for restoration of the application is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the application and submits that there is an inordinate delay of 1220 days. There is no satisfactory explanation offered. Hence, the application for condonation of delay be dismissed. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The miscellaneous appeal which was sought to be restored bearing MAC No. 1163/2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of award. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for respective parties, as also, the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed. Delay in filing of the Miscellaneous Civil Case for restoration of MAC No. 1163/2013 is condoned. 8. Also heard on application for restoration of MAC No. 1163/2013. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the case on the date of hearing could not be traced in the cause list and therefore, no one appeared when the case was called for hearing before the Court. Non- appearence is not deliberate for the reasons as mentioned above. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission and would submit that the case was listed for final hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that none appeared for the appellant therein, even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. Hence, no ground is made out for restoration of this appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 12. On due consideration of submission of counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application, it is allowed. MAC No. 1163/2013 is restored to its original number. However, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to raise the ground with respect to the award of interest at the time of hearing of the MAC in view of the application for restoration of the miscellaneous appeal filed after 1220 days. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey