Allowed

Dauwa Sinh Rajput and Others v. Raju and Anothers

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2010MCC/303/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Chhattisgarh allowed an application for restoration of F.A. No. 221/2006, dismissing the underlying appeal, as the counsel for the applicants satisfactorily explained the absence due to a bona fide mistake by their predecessor.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration of F.A. No. 221/2006 allowed. FA restored to original file.

Dauwa Sinh Rajput and Others Vs Raju and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

INTHEHIGI-I^OURTOFJUDICATURECHHATnSGARH ATBXLASPUR

¶2

M.C.C. NQ.^C)^ /2010

¶3

Singl®E (Arising outofF.A.No. 221/2006)

¶4

APPLICANTS (Appellants)

¶5

1-A.

¶6

y't^^j^ ^ ,..-^.y^^ l^''^?.^yyfw-^ 1-B ^^

¶7

Dauwa Sinh Rajput

¶8

(nowdead Through LRs),

¶9

Rajendra Sinh, Son of late Dauwa Sinh, aged about 55 years, R/o. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon

¶10

(C.G.),

¶11

Meena Bai Wife of Mohan Sinh Rajput, aged about 45 years, R/o. Kodmuda, Malighori, Dudhali, Tahsil Balod, District Durg(C.G.),

¶12

1-C

¶13

Narendra Sinh, Son ofDauwa Sinh Rajput, aged about 40 years, R/o. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.),

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

fNON-APPLICANTS) 1 Raju S/o. Darbari Gond, aged about (Respondents) 43 years,-Br

¶16

(Respondents)

¶17

2, Birsinh S/o. DarbariGond, aged about 38years,

¶18

Bbth are R/o. Basantpur,Town, Tahsil and Distt. -Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶19

APPLIGATIONFORRESTORATIONOFF.A. N0.221 / 2006. DISMISSEDON03-(l5-2010FORW«NTOFPROSECUfION

¶20

^=r •<ii^i<>i'ii, BTilyis, fsiciiyy,< HI*«II a»*i(sh^....^^..........5.6..3..^.....^200

¶21

sn^i Tra^ ('yiI^iyT)

¶22

an^r qn Ri'ii* TOnw^rfro sii^i +i'4(<-i'il-< ^wi^i ^ f^S <iai«(i<
W 3T(^T ^tffqi ^TaiRpraii^i
S.B. Hon'bte ^iri Justfee N.K. Jtaanml
02^^010
Shri VK Sharma, Advoctfe |for appticants.
HeaFd on application for re^oration of FA No. 221®006.
Leamed counsel appearin^ ft»rthe applicaitts submits that
the counsel for the appdlant ct)uld not appear m aGeount of
bonafide mtelake, therefore, flA hto. 221/2006, which was
tfianissed on 03.(».2010,may b^ I re^wed to its origlnal ffl&
On due consideratlon, 1 a|i(n srtisBed that the (^imsel for
appellant Is succeeded in eys^i the cause of his ateence,
therefore, the appltesrtion ts all^wed aid FA No. is
restwed to tts origtnal flte.
A copy of thte order be ^laced on record ef the ortglnal
appealand ttie same be listed f^)r h^irb^ Immediatety aRer fewo
weeks.
^<
Sd/-
N.K.Agarawal
Sahu
Judge
areOT sbfhf %s»irs>'!;, rpT-i-ipR —FS/I47—2/201n —i ,00,000.
--Al...- . . . .. <A

Dauwa Sinh Rajput and Others v. Raju and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dauwa Sinh Rajput and Others v. Raju and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barafi Devi and Others Vs Anil Kumar Gupta and Another

Icici Lombard,Gic Ltd. Vs Dashrath Manjhi Udia and Ors.

Dayashanker Sahu Vs Smt.Bisakha Bai

Sarvjeet Pathak Vs Surendra Kumar Jain

Lakhan Vs Dela Bai and Others

Shatrughan Dhruv Vs Devki Bai and Another