Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19090 (CHH)

ARUN CHOUDHARI v. AJAY SHUKLA

MCC/486/2025 · 2026-05-07

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:21703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 486 of 2025 Arun Choudhari S/o Dharam Narayan Choudhari Aged About 36 Years R/o Sarju Bagicha, C.B. Heights, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Ajay Shukla S/o Sudama Prasad Shukla Aged About 46 Years R/o Green Park Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 08/05/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2025, which is application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the M.C.C. as well as on restoration application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that when First Appeal No. 94 of 2020 was taken-up for hearing on 18.02.2025, at that time, petitioner’s counsel was engaged in hearing WPS No. 3152 of 2025, therefore, he could not appear on that day i.e. on 18.02.2025. He further submits that subsequently inadvertently, the petitioner could not get aware about his case, therefore, delay of 32 days in filing the instant MCC, hence, the said delay in filing the MCC is 2 bonafide. As such, delay of 32 days in filing the instant MCC is condoned and the First appeal No. 94 of 2020 may be restored to its original number. 3. Counsel for the respondent No. 2/ State has no objection to allow the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the instant MCC as well as the MCC for restoration of F.A. No. 94 of 2020 {Arun Choudhari & others vs. Ajay Shukla and another}, the delay in filing the MCC is hereby condoned and the aforesaid MCC is allowed. 5. Consequently, the Registry is directed to restore the F.A. No. 94 of 2020 is restored to its original number. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi JUDGE amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.05.13 11:05:41 +0530