1 2026:CGHC:26000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 519 of 2026 1 - Snehlata Gupta @ Babli D/o Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao, Aged About 48 Years R/o Krishna Nagar Ward Juna Bilaspur (Baniyapara) Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur C.G. ... applicant versus 1 - Hitesh Gupta @ Lucky Gupta S/o Late Narendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 32 Years Grandson Of Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao, Aged About 32 Years, Respondent No. 1 And 2 R/o Village Gudi (Seepat), Tahsil Masturi Sub-Tahsil Seepat District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Saurabh Gupta @ Sonal Gupta S/o Late Narendra Kumar Gupta, Grandason Of Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao Aged About 26 Years Respondent No. 1 And 2 R/o Village Gudi (Seepat), Tahsil Masturi Sub-Tahsil Seepat District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Sandeepa Gupta @ Reena Gupta D/o Late Narendra Kumar Gupta Granddaughter Of Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao, W/o Shri Aditya Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Dipka Tahsil And District Korba C.G. 4 - Deleted Nil 5 - Rajendra Prasad Sao S/o Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao Aged About 59 Years Respondent No. 5 And 6 Are R/o Krishana Nagar Ward Juna Bilaspur (Baniyapara) Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G 6 - Ramakant Gupta S/o Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao, Aged About 50 Years Respondent No. 5 And 6 Are R/o Krishana Nagar Ward Juna Bilaspur (Baniyapara) Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 7 - Smt, Gayatri Gupta W/o Shri Ashok Gupta Aged About 57 Years D/o Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao R/o Juna Bilaspur City Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. -2- 8 - Smt, Pushplata Gupta Wd/o Late Rajendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 60 Years D/o Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao R/o Baniyapara Aarang District Raipur C.G. 9 - Smt, Kumund Rani Guru Goswami W/o Shri Kailash Saheb Guru Goswami D/o Late Raghuraj Prasad Sao Aged About 52 Years R/o Shukrawari Bazar Gudhiyari District Raipur C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.06.2026 1) Heard. 2) The applicant has preferred this MCC application for restoration of Civil Revision No.102 of 2016 which was dismissed on account of peremptory order dated 23.03.2026. On said date, counsel appearing for the applicant was granted one week’s time to rectify the defects pointed out by the Registry. It was also observed in the order that if the applicant fails to rectify the defects within a period of one week, Civil Revision No.102 of of 2016 shall be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. It appears that the applicant failed to rectify the defects, resultantly, civil revision No.102 of 2016 got dismissed. 3) Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate would submit that due to inadvertence, the applicant could not rectify the defects pointed out 3 by the Registry and on account of peremptory order dated 23.03.2026, Civil Revision No.102 of 2016 got dismissed. He would submit that the applicant is highly interested in pursuing the matter and the mistake was bonafide. He would pray to allow this application. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Shyam Kumar and the grounds raised in the application, the same is allowed and CR No.102 of 2016 is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. 6) MCC stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha