1 CGHC010108672023 2026:CGHC:31558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 43 of 2023 Ku. Roopsagar (Dead) Through Legal Heir- Lokesh Kumar Ramteke S/o Mehattar, Alias Chandra Kumar, Age About-36 Years, R/o Village-Tikari, Tehsil-Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. D/o Late Abhay Ram, R/o Village- Tikari, Tehsil-Gun- derdehi, District- Balod (C.G.)(Plaintiff) --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Phooleshwari Bai (Dead) Through Legal Heirs- Nil 1.1 - Balram S/o Ludu Ram (Wrongly Mentioned As Lutu) Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Shyam Kumar S/o Ludu Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Digvijay Kumar S/o Ludu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Mehattar Alias Chandra Kumar S/o Late Abhay Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Collector Balod (C.G.). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Uttam Chandra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. R.K. Gumasta, Adv. For Respondents No. 1.1 to 1.4 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer 2 (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 22-7-2027 1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 27-2-2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Balod in Misc. Civil Suit No. 39/2022, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Proce- dure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC"), seeking restoration of the appeal dis- missed for want of prosecution on 23-9-2022, has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an unregistered civil ap- peal was filed before the District Judge, Balod on 9-3-2022. Thereafter, on the date fixed, i.e., 16-8-2022, his counsel informed him that the ap- peal had been listed for hearing on 29-9-2022. However, when the ap- pellant appeared before the Court on 29-9-2022, he came to know that the unregistered appeal had already been dismissed for want of prose- cution on 23-9-2022. It is submitted that, on account of the incorrect date communicated by his counsel, the appellant could not remain present on 23-9-2022. Immediately thereafter, the appellant filed an ap- plication for restoration on 29-9-2022, i.e., within six days from the date of dismissal of the appeal. It is, therefore, contended that the absence of the appellant on the relevant date was bona fide. Despite the afore- said facts, the learned District Judge rejected the restoration applica- 3 tion, which is contrary to law. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned or- der be set aside and the learned District Judge, Balod be directed to restore the civil appeal to its original position as it stood on 23-9-2022. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1.1 to 1.4 opposed the appeal and supported the impugned order. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the State is only a formal party to the present proceedings. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that the unregistered civil appeal was filed on 9-3-2022. Thereafter, the matter was listed on six occasions, yet the appeal was not registered. The respondents had already en- tered appearance on 28-6-2022. The restoration application was filed on 29-9-2022, merely six days after the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The explanation furnished by the appellant that he could not appear on 23-9-2022 because his counsel had inadvertently communicated the next date of hearing as 29-9-2022 appears to be bona fide. The restoration application was also filed without any undue delay. In such circumstances, the learned District Judge ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the application for restoration. The rejection of the restoration application, despite the sat- isfactory explanation offered by the appellant, cannot be sustained in law. 9. Consequently, the present Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The im- pugned order (Annexure A-1) dated 27-2-2023 passed in Misc. Civil Suit No. 39/2022 is hereby set aside. The learned District Judge, Balod is directed to restore and register the unregistered civil appeal titled 4 Ku. Rupsagar (dead) through LRs Lokesh Kumar v. Smt. Fuleshwari (dead) through LRs Balram & Others to the stage at which it stood on 23-9-2022, and thereafter proceed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of restoration. 10. Learned counsel for both the parties shall extend full cooperation to the appellate Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal. They shall also ensure the appearance of their respective parties before the appellate Court on 11-8-2026. 11. The original record of the unregistered civil appeal be returned forth- with along with a copy of this order. 12. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.23 16:23:42 +0530