The Bench allowed an application for restoration of a Second Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, accepting the explanation for non-appearance by the appellants.
M.C.C. allowed; Second Appeal No.689/1998 restored to original number; no order as to costs.
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 CHHATTiSOARH AT BILASPUR
M.C.C.No.761of2010
Appellants 1. Jhumtoo S/o Budhram Defendants
All R/o VIII. Mandwa, Tahsll Jagdaipur, Distt.Bastar (C.G.)
Versus
Respondents 1. Mahngu S/o Shahdeo Piaintiffs
|i»r
Both R/o. Vill. Mandwa, Tahsil
Jagdalpur. Distt.Bastar (C.G.)
(Application for restoration ofSecond Appeal No.689/1998)
(SB:Hon'bleMr.T.P.Sharma,J.)
Present:-
Mr.Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appeilants.
Mr.U.K.S.Chandel, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.3/State.
ht
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on 3 January, 2011)
its original number. No order as to costs.
Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge
B/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for restoration of the dismissed second appeal should be allowed in light of the appellants explanation.
Jhumtoo S/o Budhram
Masu S/o Budhram
Suado S/o SahacSeo
Mahngu S/o Shahdeo
Lekhan S/o Shshdeo
State of C.G. through Collector, Bastar
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
