1 CGHC010280802026 2026:CGHC:32758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 687 of 2026 1 - Bishal S/o Late Churaman Lodhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Goverdhan S/o Late Churaman Lodhi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hincharam (Died) Through Lrs Nil. 3.1 - Shanti Bai W/o Hincharam Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.2 - Jeevan Patel S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.3 - Kamta Patel S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.4 - Virendra Patel S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kalaram S/o Late Churaman Lodhi Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kejuram S/o Kawal Singh Lodhi Aged About 90 Years R/o Village Shivkokdi Deurkonha, Post Chicha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Durgaram S/o Kejuram Lodhi Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Shivkokdi Deurkonha, Post Chicha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Godawari W/o Sukhnandan Lodhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Suwartala, Post Shikaribeeja, Tehsil Saaj, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dularibai W/o Budhram Lodhi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village 2 Takam, Post Dharsiwa, Tehsil Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sushila Devi W/o Bhagwan Singh Lodhi Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Takam, Post Dharsiwa, Tehsil Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate alongwith Mr. Ankit Bhoi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is an application for restoration of WP227 No. 657/2022 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.04.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 24.04.2026 when the matter was called for hearing, due to unavoidable reason, he could not appeared before this Court and the petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. The matter pertains to rejection of the application under Section 47 of CPC before the learned executing Court which needs adjudication on merits. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and WP227 No. 657/2022 is restored to its original number. 7. The MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit