1 2026:CGHC:20633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 321 of 2026 1 - Dr. N.C. Kothari S/o Late Shri Ashkaran Kothari Aged About 56 Years Director Priyanka Hospital First Floor, Priyanka Complex, J.E. Road Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Societies Block- 3 II And II Floor, Indravati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Dy. Registrar Co- Operative Societies Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Durg Co- Operative Marketing Society Ltd Durg Through President Krishna Rice Mill, Dhamdhanaka Durg Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicants No.1 & 2/State For Non-applicant No.3 : : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. Shri Siddharath Rathore, Advocate. Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board 04.05.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This M.C.C. has been filed for restoration of W.P.(C) No.648/2017, NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.05.04 16:57:30 +0530 2 which was dismissed in default by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence, counsel engaged by the petitioner could not appear before this Court, owing to which, the said petition has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 27.09.2024. It is contended further that the notice, dated 25.02.2026, issued by the Deputy Registrar, Durg, was received by the petitioner on 05.03.2026, whereby, he was directed to appear before the said authority on 18.03.2026. It is contended further that during the said period commencing from 22.02.2026 upto 18.03.2026, he was medically unfit, while placing the medical certificate to this effect. Further of his contention is that immediately upon his recovery, he contacted his counsel engaged by him, namely, Ms. Pritha Ghoshal, but came to know that she had already shifted to Indore (M.P.), while another of his counsel Shri Tridib Bhattacharya to Raipur (C.G.), therefore, no one could appear on behalf of the petitioner on the said day, i.e., 27.09.2024, owing to which, the petition was dismissed in default. It is contended further that immediately after knowing the said fact, he applied for obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order on 19.03.2026 and in pursuance thereof, the same was delivered to him on the same date and on the next date, i.e., on 20.03.2026, the instant petition has been filed. It is contended further that the delay, which occurred bonafidely, may kindly be condoned, while restoring the said petition in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the proper explanation from the date of dismissal of the said writ petition, i.e., 27.09.2024, upto 22.02.2026 has not been explained and, contended further that other of his counsels engaged by him, though practicing here but did not appear and, no explanation to this effect has been assigned, therefore, the petition, as framed, deserved to be dismissed. 3 5. Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties, considering further the reasons assigned by the petitioner, which is duly supported by an affidavit and also of his medical certificate dated 19.03.2026, I am inclined to allow this petition. 6. Accordingly, the instant M.C.C is allowed and W.P.(C) No.648/2017, dismissed in default on 27.09.2024, is directed to be restored to its original number subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, through its Secretary Member within a period of 30 days from today. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita