1 2025:CGHC:49107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 983 of 2025 1 - Ammelal S/o Shri Shivprasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Podi (Bachra), Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kishun S/o Shri Hiralal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Podi (Bachra) Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Phuleshwari D/o Shri Shivprasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Podi (Bachra) Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (S/o Wrongly Mentioned In Order ) ... Applicants versus 1 - Dashrath S/o Shri Jaishanker Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Podi (Bachra) Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Koriya, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.25 16:47:05 +0530 2 Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 2. On due consideration, for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.01/2025 is allowed and the delay of 3 days in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on M.C.C., which is an application for restoration of SA No.198/2022, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025 for want of prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that earlier the counsel represented applicants/appellants has extended his NOC to the applicants, thereafter the applicants could not have appointed new advocate to represent them in this case, hence on date of hearing i.e. on 11.08.2025, the applicants and their counsel could not appear, when the case was taken-up for hearing, therefore, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence, the said mistake was bonafide and the applicant wants to contest the case on merits, thus the instant MCC may be allowed and SA No.198/2022 may be restored to its original number. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised formal objection. 3 6. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, instant MCC is hereby allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to restore S.A. No.198/2022 (Ammelal and Others vs. Dashrath and Another) in its original number. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi