NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 276 of 2026 Ramesh S/o. Nandlal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Chandeni (Dehandih), Thana Sahaspur- Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Radhabai (Since Deceased) Lrs Nil 1(a) Janrail Singh S/o Ghanshyam Aged About 45 Years 1(b) Mansingh S/o Ghanshyam Aged About 43 Years 1(c) Virendra S/o Ghanshyam Aged About 33 Years 1(d) Narayan S/o Ghanshyam Aged About 28 Years All above R/o Village Udiya, Thana Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Janrel Singh, S/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 30 Years 3 - Virendra Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Singh Aged About 26 Years 4 - Narayan S/o Ghanshyam Singh Aged About 19 Years All R/o Odia Thana, Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondents-1(a) to 1(d) : Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms A Sandhya Rao, Advocate For State : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Dy GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 23.03.2026 1. This is an application for restoration of Second Appeal- 510 of 2005, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.12.2025. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.03.30 18:37:57 +0530 Mcc 276 of 2026 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that due to unavoidable reasons he could not appear on 09.12.2025 when the matter was called up for hearing and the Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal pertains to property rights of the parties, and requires adjudication on merits. Therefore, it may be restored and the matter may be heard on merits. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellant is negligent in prosecuting the appeal and it was repeatedly dismissed on various occasions on 08.10.2014, 26.11.2013 and restored on 20.02.2015. Thereafter, it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.02.2019, and restored vide order dated 20.03.2024. The Second Appeal was again dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.12.2025. He would also submit that in the meantime, the MCC itself was also dismissed for want of prosecution on various occasions and ultimately restored. Hence, considering the negligence of applicant in prosecuting the Second Appeal, it may not be restored again. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of MCC as well as Second Appeal. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, though the Second Appeal-510 of 2005 was dismissed repeatedly, however, considering the fat that property rights of the applicant were involved in the Second Appeal, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the present MCC is allowed, and Mcc 276 of 2026 3 the Second Appeal is restored to its original number, subject to payment of cost by the applicant. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2025 passed in Second Appeal- 510 of 2025 is recalled and the said Second Appeal is restored to its original number subject to applicant’s payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- within two weeks from today in the Registry of this Court and the said amount shall be transmitted to the Government Children Home (Boys), District-Kabirdham. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, MCC stands allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma