The High Court dismissed an application seeking restoration of a dismissed civil revision. The court found no good or sufficient grounds for restoration and rejected the applicant's cause as lacking substance.
Application for restoration of Civil Revision No. 2017/2000 is dismissed with no 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.
^
"^M "n:
^9&
(2) <'.v
"?-1^600 ^ ^5
(J^r^
Before -the KoH<ble Hi^h Govri of J@dijea'twTe at Bilaspiir, aaa'ttiS(|arK«
^•.,;c,:c:;l;,;,i_,-..:..-.-..,^,-.-^ Civil m&^-^eM€±etiNo. 2^ /2G01
Applicants;-
^
VSo
M
^
'•'^,
'•^-
Nom-applicarat:
..^y".^?;
.^^y
'^^^'
:
^^y
<^
Niarari Lal Agrawal soti of Vishambar ^rawal, a@edl 59 years, reside^-b o£ Maia Boael> Swea^pwc, Tahsll Siarajptir, Distriet SyrQ|©ja»Chai-kisgarh*
Appliea'feioia aader Order 9 Miale 9 rea<i witfa Seetioi'i 151 Code of Civil Pr3oee4tare»
In the aiai'ber ©fdlisaBissal in defaQlt of ©ivtlMevi.sio^ N©»2©1:7/2©©G C S©yfch Eas iern G©alfiel^s M^« and otMeys Vsy sa^rari £al Ag^awal for Roia-appearfi^ce ©f-fche appiicaiats o® 11-12-2000,
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. C. C. No. 2of2001
Applicants South Eastern Coalfields Lfd. 85 others
Versus
Respondents Murari Lal Agrawal
APPLIGATION FOR RESTORATION OF CIVIL REVISION N0. 2017/2000
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Abhay Manohar Sapre, & Hon'bleMr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ.
^'
Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate for the applicants.
None for the respondent.
ORDERforall
( Passed on this 13th day ofJuly, 2012 )
Per Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
t
This M. C. C. is a restoration application and itarise out of the order passed in Civil Revision No. 2017/2000, which came to be dismissed on 11.12.2000 for want of prosecutton. This restoration application is placed before this ,Court asiper Rules because in the meantime the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the said civil revision has demitted the office. We have gone through the cause stated in the application made for restoration of the case and find that it does not constitute a good or sufficient ground for restoration of the civil revision. In fact looking to the manner in which the applicant prosecuted'the main case and this application, we are satisfied that no/case is made out for recalling of the impugned order.
As a consequence this application i.e. application seeking restoration is liable to be dismissed.
Although, in view of what is held supra, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case out of which this M.C.C. arises, yet we have perused the entire record of the
I
case and find that even otherwise there is no ment^^^a^ substance in the case which may require hearing on merits. In other words, we have not been able to notice any substantial ground in fhe case warranting its restoratio^ 6. In the light ofthe foregoing discussion, we do not fi.nd any good or sufficient ground made in the application for restoration of thecase (civil revision). We are therefore constrained to dismiss the application for restoration of the
civil revision.
Thakur
Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge
Sd/-
G. Minhajuddin
Judge
(?'
1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds stated in the application are sufficient for the restoration of the dismissed civil revision.
If restoration is not justified, whether the impugned order should be recalled.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
South Eastern Coalfields Limited 85 others
Murari Lal Agrawal
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
