1 2025:CGHC:39464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 192 of 2023 Bisahu S/o Late Makhan Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tumakala Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Maniram S/o Late Makhan Ram Aged About 40 Years Village Tumakala, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lakhan S/o Late Sukhram Aged About 55 Years Village Ghasra, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mohini @ Rohini Meshram W/o Kedar Meshram Aged About 45 Years Santoshi Nagar, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhagwati Gautam W/o Dhruv Kumar Aged About 40 Years Santoshi Nagar Mathpuraina Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shanti Pandey W/o Ghanshyam Pandey Aged About 35 Years Santoshi Nagar, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. RK Gomasta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Adv. on behalf of Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.6/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order On Board 07.8.2025 1. This misc. appeal has been preferred against Order dated 10.11.2023 passed by VI Additional District Judge, Durg (CG) in MJC Civil No.373/2023, whereby restoration application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, has been dismissed. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.08.08 15:16:39 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2023 (Bisahu vs. Maniram & Ors.) was listed for hearing on 17.8.23, but it was dismissed in default, as the advocate of the appellant could not be present when the case was taken up for hearing and the appellant, who was present outside the Court, was unable to understand the call of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant/ defendant wants to contest the case on merit, hence, instant appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned Order dated 10.11.2023 and restoring Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2023. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order dated 10.11.2023. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 shows that when the regular civil appeal was called for hearing, counsel for the appellant was busy in some other Court, but the appellant himself was present outside the Court, despite that he did not appear before the Court. If the appellant was interested in his case, he would have filed the restoration application on the same day i.e. on 17.8.2023 itself to show his bonafide intention, but he filed restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC on 23.8.2023. This conduct of the appellant shows lack of his bonafideness. Further, the lower courts are faced with the fact that, when cases are called for hearing, counsel are often not present, even though they are completely free and present within the court premises. 6. Having considered the totality of the facts, in the interest of justice, I feel inclined to allow this appeal subject to imposing cost. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to deposit 3 cost of Rs.5,000/- in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Durg within 30 days from today, thereafter, in the event of submitting the receipt of the same within 07 days, the VI Aditional District Judge, Durg is directed to restore Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2023 (Bisahu vs. Maniram & Ors.) in its original number and proceed in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the misc. appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini