1 CGHC010309002026 2026:CGHC:42574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 835 of 2026 1 - Fabiyola D/o Lorens Aged About 38 Years By Caste - Oraon, R/o Village Kunkuri, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lorens S/o Late Raghupatras Aged About 73 Years By Caste Oraon, R/o Village Kunkuri, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Tarshila W/o Late Harmon Aged About 48 Years By Caste - Oraon, R/o Village Gadakata, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Alok S/o Late Harmon Aged About 23 Years By Caste Oraon, R/o Village Gadakata, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sudhir S/o Late Johan Aged About 43 Years By Caste Oraon, R/o Village Gadakata, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.09.30 17:23:10 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30.09.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, application for condonation of delay in filing this MCC. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the above application, the I.A. No. 01/2026 is allowed. Delay of 63 days in filing this MCC is hereby condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that SA No. 287/2020 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 04.05.2026, as none appeared on behalf of the applicants when the matter was called for hearing on admission. It is submitted that the non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to a bona fide typographical error in the Daily Cause List, wherein the name of the learned counsel was incorrectly mentioned as “GAYAN PRAKASH SHUKLA” instead of “GYAN PRAKASH 3 SHUKLA”, due to which the matter could not be traced through digital search. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have a good case on merits and would suffer prejudice if the appeal is not restored. He, therefore, prays for recall of the order dated 04.05.2026 and restoration of SA No. 287/2020. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the explanation furnished for non-appearance, which appears to be bona fide and inadvertent, sufficient cause is made out for restoration of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the present MCC is allowed. The order dated 04.05.2026 is recalled and SA No. 287/2020 is restored to its original number. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib