Allowed

Guriha Died Thr.Lrs Suka Chand and Ors. v. Pramod Kumar and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2011MCC/121/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for restoration, the Single Bench recalled the order dismissing Second Appeal No. 362/1995 for want of prosecution, finding the cause shown for non-appearance satisfactory, and restored the appeal to its original number.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order dismissing Second Appeal No. 362/1995 for want of prosecution and restoration of the appeal to its original number.

Guriha Died Thr.Lrs Suka Chand and Ors… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH

¶2

M.C.C. NO/ l2.\ 2011

¶3

APPELLANT 1. Guriha S/o Sarha, aged about 67 67
years, occupation - Gadaria,
Resident of Village of Village Village patharia, Tahsil
Mungeli, District - - Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.)
.^^sy^ (Died) through Legal HR's
'^^u Suka Chand, aged 45 years, R/o
T^$^^
Uslapur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶4

Guriha S/o Sarha, aged about 67 67 years, occupation - Gadaria, Resident of Village of Village Village patharia, Tahsil Mungeli, District - - Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) (Died) through Legal HR's

¶5

Ude Ram age 45 years, R/o Kharmore, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

h^-

C.^

G.^

H. ^ VERSUS

RESPONDENTS t.

Mool Chand, aged 35 years, R/o Kharmore, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

Ramkumar age 32 years, R/o Kharmore, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

Shiv Kumar age 30 years, R/o Kharmore, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

Santosh Kumar age 28 years, R/o Kharmore, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶19

Smt. Kamla, Bai age 42 years W/o Jugru R/o Ramkepur, Kawadha (C.G.)

¶20

Smt. Vimla Bai W/o Makhanlal, age 27 years, R/o Burgah, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶21

Pramod Kumar age 48 years,

¶22

Sunil Kumar Gupta, age 44 years, Both sons ofAnand Dulla Gupta, resident of Village Patharia, Tahsil - Mungeli, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶23

/ 3. The State of M.P. now C.G. Through Collector, District - Bilaspur C.G.

¶24

APPLICATION FORRESTORATION OF SECONDAPPEAL N0.362/1995 WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 22^2011 FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

¶25

¶26

IGH OF CHHATTSSOARH AT BILASRJR

¶27

M.C.C.N0.121 OF 2011

¶28

APPLICANTS^ Guriha since (Died) through : Legal Heirs and others.

¶29

Versvs.

¶30

NON-APPLJCANTS Prarnod Kumar and others.

¶31

ApPLiCATION FOR RESTORATiON OF SECOND APPEAL N0_ 362/1995

¶32

[

¶33

ISinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. Aaarv<faE. J.)

¶34

Ere§ent: Shri Maiay Kumar Bhaduri, counse! for the applicants.

¶35

ORAL

¶36

(Passed on 9th day.of IVIarch, 2011)

¶37

Heard on M.C.C.

¶38

The appijcants have fiied this appiicatlon for restoration of S.A. No.362/1995 as the same has dismissed for of prosecution vide order dated 22-02-2011 . 3.. For the reasons In the application for restoratlon, I am of tn^ oplnlon that the cause shown for their non-appearance is satisfactory and therefore, the order dated 22-02-2011 dismlssing the S.A. No.362/1995 for want of prosecution is re-calSed, the Secona' Appeal is restored to its original number.

¶39

A copy of thls order be placed cn record of the S<A< No,362/1995 and list the same two weeks.

¶40

Certlfled copy as per rule

¶41

Sd/N.K. Agarwal Judge

¶42

Kvr

Guriha Died Thr.Lrs Suka Chand and Ors. v. Pramod Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guriha Died Thr.Lrs Suka Chand and Ors. v. Pramod Kumar and Ors.

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

Bharat Lal Vs Snehil Singh and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Dixena and Ors. Vs Laxmi Devi Dixena and Anr.

Hamid Khan Vs Rahman Bee

Heeralal Since Dead Thr Lrs. and Ors. Vs Smt. Isbati and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Korba Vs Daduram and Ors.