1 MCC No. 778 of 2026 CGHC010313322026 2026:CGHC:37425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 778 of 2026  Gautam S/o Vinod Bihari Aged About 43 Years Caste - Kolta, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Badamooda Paasgaon, Tala Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Gadarai Son Of Dukhu Kolta, Aged About 53 Years, Occupation Agriculturist; 2. Amrit Lal S/o Dukhu Kolta, Aged About 50 Years, Occupation Agriculturist; 3. Mu. Lalit, D/o Dukhu Kolta Aged About 45 Years Occupation Agriculturist; 4. Mu. Safed Bai, D/o Dukhu Kolta, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Agriculturist; All respondents No.1 to 4 are R/o Village Tala, Paasgaon, Jadakuda, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant :- Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents :- Ms. Priti Kaushik, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For State :- Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MCC No. 778 of 2026 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 20.08.2026 1. The instant MCC has been filed by the applicant along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the instant MCC seeking extension of time to comply with the order of this Court dated 20.10.2023 passed in MCC No.312 of 2022 which was filed for restoration of SA No. 347 of 2009. 2. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the application would submit that the delay caused in filing the instant MCC is unintentional. He would also submit that to comply with the order of this Court passed on 20.10.2023 in MCC No. 312 of 2022, counsel tried to contact with the applicant but he could not make it as the contact number which was given by the application to his counsel got changed and on that account information could not be given to the application and the order dated 20.10.2023 could not be complied with within stipulated time. He would further submit that the applicant is an agriculturist and he was doing the agricultural activity and due to which he could not contact his counsel in relation to the status of the case and after knowing the status of the case the instant MCC has been filed, therefore, he prays for condonation of delay in filing the instant MCC and also for extension of time to comply with the order of this Court dated 20.10.2023. 3 MCC No. 778 of 2026 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the application, it appears that MCC No.312 of 2022 was filed for restoration of S.A. No.347 of 2009 in which this Court has passed the order on 20.10.2023 for restoration of the said second appeal subject to payment of ₹2,000/- before the High Court Legal Service Committee and file proof thereof before this Court on or before 03.11.2023. The said order has not been complied with within the stipulated time and for the delay the reason stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the due to contact number of the applicant got changed counsel could not inform said order passed in MCC No.312 of 2022 right in time. However, the instant MCC for extension of time has been filed on 07.08.2026 after about 3 years passing of MCC No.312 of 2022 and during that period there had been no communication between the applicant and the counsel regarding the case and even otherwise, the said delay of more than two years has not been satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, nothing has been stated by the learned counsel applicant that what efforts had been taken by applicant and the counsel to know the status of case. Since the applicant failed to show any "sufficient cause" for not complying with the order passed in MCC No.312 of 2022 and also for such an 4 MCC No. 778 of 2026 extraordinary delay i.e. almost 3 years in filing the instant MCC, the instant MCC is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit