Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3281 (CHH)

RAJ KUMAR SONKAR v. SMT. MALTI SONKAR

MCC/311/2026 · 2026-04-05

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:15598-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 311 of 2026 Raj Kumar Sonkar S/o Vishnu Ram Sonkar Aged About 37 Years R/o Amapara, Village-Khurmuda, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (Cg) ... Applicant versus Smt. Malti Sonkar W/o Raj Kumar Sonkar Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 263, Amarapa, Village- Khurmuda, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma (06.04.2026) Order on Board Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the default pointed out by the Registry has been cured and paper book has MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2026.04.06 16:37:19 +0530 2 already been filed. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The application being arguable is admitted for hearing. 5. Issue notice to the non-applicant, Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the non-application accepts notice. 6. This MCC has been filed seeking restoration of FA(MAT) No. 275 of 2023, which was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 04.02.2026. 7. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. FA(MAT) No. 275 of 2023 is restored to its original number for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Madhurima