1 2026:CGHC:5872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 107 of 2026 1. Raj Kumar S/o Late Manohar Gere Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Amane, Police Station And Tahsil- Kota, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Gayatri Bai S/o Shri Raj Kumar Gere Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Amane, Police Station And Tahsil- Kota, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Rajanikant (Dead) Through Lrs. (Driver Cum Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 10-X 8731) 1(a)Smt. Jyoti W/o Late Rajanikant Yadav Aged About 19 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Village -Tanda, Police Station And Tahsil-Kota, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 1(b) Manthan S/o Shivcharan Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o Village -Tanda, Police Station And Tahsil-Kota, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 1(c) Smt. Gwalin W/o Manthan Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Tanda, Police Station And Tahsil-Kota, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The I.C.I.C.I Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office- Near Nutan Chauk, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh). (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.10-X8731) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.02.04 10:46:40 +0530 2 03/02/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01, an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC. 2. The present MCC has been filed for restoration of M.A. No. 659 of 2021, wherein by order dated 9.11.2021, a peremptory order was passed granting four weeks’ time to learned counsel for the appellants to remove the defects, failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on 15.11.2021, he had filed an application for condonation of delay and had cured the defects as pointed out by the Registry within the stipulated period; however, he did not obtain receiving from the office. It is further submitted that despite curing the defects, M.A. No. 659 of 2021 came to be dismissed. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, since learned counsel himself admits that he had not obtained receipt from the office regarding submission of the application for condonation of delay & there is no proof that the appellant has cured the default within the stipulated period, it cannot be presumed that the defects were cured within the stipulated period. Moreover, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of 1393 days in filing the present MCC. 5. Accordingly, the present MCC is dismissed on the ground of delay. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti