1 2026:CGHC:26357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 56 of 2025  Salasar Welfare Resident Association Through Its Secretary Shri Pankaj Soni, S/o Shri K.L. Soni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 402, B-Block, Salasar Greens, Sarona, Ward No. 17, Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1. M/s Sachdeva Builcon Through Mr. Vivek Sachdev, S/o Late Shaman Das Sachdev, R/o Narayan Mill Compound, Ramsagar Para, Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. M/s Wallfort Properties Private Limited, Through Shri Sanjay Golechha, R/o House No. G-17, Shriram Park, D.D.U. Housing Nagar, Daganiya, Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Wallfort Garden Residential Society, Near Salasar Greens Sarona, Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 1 : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 3 : Mr. Shristi Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.06 .2026 1. This application has been filed for restoration of MA No. 158 of 2023, which has been dismissed on account of peremptory order dated 22.11.2023, whereby, applicant herein was granted two weeks’ time to remove the default pointed out by the Registry. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.30 18:12:44 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that due to inadvertence, default could not be cured within given time. He would submit that applicant is highly interested to pursue the matter. He would pray to allow this application. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that there is delay of 383 days in filing instant application. They would contend that sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay, therefore, application for condonation of delay as well as application for restoration of appeal may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It appears that on account of peremptory order MA No. 158 of 2023 has been dismissed. Perusal of application for condonation of delay would show that the applicant has shown sufficient reasons, accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed. 6. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari and the reasons assigned in the application, the instant MCC is allowed. M.A. No. 158 of 2023 is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- each to non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3. 7. The applicant would be at liberty to make payment of cost to respective Advocates appearing for non-applicants. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant