This order allowed an application for restoration of W.A. No. 18 of 2010 which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The court found that the absence of the appellants' counsel was based on bona fide grounds and restored the writ appeal.
M.C.C. No. 126/2010 allowed; W.A. No. 18 of 2010 restored to original number.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR
CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J,
MCC No.126/2010
^..
4
6
^s""^.''%,
y^
/ts
kPPLICATiON FQR RESTORATlON OF WA. No.18/2010
Hresent : Shri varun Sharma, Counsei for the petitioners. Atok Bakshi, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents 1 & 2. (12th March, 2010) The foilowtng order of fhe Court was passed by
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
Learned counset for the parties are heard on the restoration petition.
2010 is restored to its oriainal number.
-___ _
Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/Judge ChiefJustiee
subbu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether W.A. No. 18 of 2010 should be restored to its original number after being dismissed for want of prosecution.
Whether the absence of counsel on the date of dismissal was based on bona fide grounds warranting restoration.
Jiwan Lal Rajak
Goverdhan Prasad Kosle
State of Chhattisgarh
Director, Employment and Training
Ashwani Kumar Verma
Prashant Kumar Dabli
Rajeev Gupta
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
