1 2025:CGHC:61013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1254 of 2025 1 - Shashikant Jaiswal S/o Kawal Ram Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Kawal Ram S/o Dauram Jaiswal Aged About 58 Years D/o R/o Village Marka Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Dhanbai W/o Darbari Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years D/o R/o Village- Motiyari Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Panbai W/o Beduram Jaiswal Aged About 53 Years D/o R/o Village- Marka Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Shyambai D/o Bhagwan Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Surajpura, Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - Kalabai D/o Komal Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Biptara, Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - Tirath Ram S/o Dauram Jaiswal Aged About 44 Years D/o R/o Village- Marka Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 7 - Rikhi Ram S/o Dauram Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years D/o R/o Village- Marka Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 8 - Sushila Bai W/o Nemichand Aged About 42 Years D/o R/o Village- Khadauda Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kabirdham District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 7 and 8 : Mr. Chandraditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 9/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.16 12:58:44 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. This is an application for restoration of SA No. 349 of 2012, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.11.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, due to unavoidable reasons, he could not appear in the case, when the matter was called for hearing and the same has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant still want to pursue his appeal, as there is compromise between the parties in the matter. Therefore, the order dated 20.11.2025 may be recalled and the second appeal may be restored to its original number. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection. 4. On due consideration on the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The order dated 20.11.2025 is recalled and the SA No. 349 of 2012 is restored to its original number. 5. In view of the above, the present MCC is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved