Application for restoration of a first appeal dismissed due to want of prosecution was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish any substantial ground warranting recall of the impugned order.
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.
SN THE HONBLE HIGK COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
MCCNO. O^- {Q¥2 i'-isi»a@
IN THE MATTER QF
F.A. N0.
¥0®BSBSi ./AWUCANT /APPBI-LANT
»j,1
SECRETABY, ^ MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA MASDAt & ANOTHER
J'lrONAPP£ICANTS/MSIPONDE?<TS
APPLICATION FOR SWTWG AS1VK THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.<-ll-a)04& FOR REOTORINGTHE fIRST APPEAI,_NQ^'7^&4 -
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
M. C, C, No. 7 of2005
Applicant Yogesh Soy
Versus
Respondents Secretary, Madhyaiaik Siksha Mandal, Raipur 65 another
APPL!CAT!QN_FQR RESTORATION OF FIRST APPEAL N0. 77/2004
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Abhay Manohar Sapre, SE Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ.
None for the applicant.
c.
None for the respondents.
O^ D^ERJoraI)
( Passed on this 13U1 day ofJuly, 2012 ) •' Per Abhay Manphar Sapre, J.
This M. C. C. is a restoration application and it arise out of the order passed in F. A. No. 77/2004, which came to be dismissed on 01.11.2004 for want of prosecution.
This restoration application is placed before this Court as per Rules because in the meantime the learned Judges, who constituted the Division Bench and which had dismissed the said first appeal, are not available having 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 first appeal. In fact looking to the manner in which the applicant prosecuted the main case and this applioation, 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 ofthe case and find that even otherwise there is no merit and
@
substance in the case which may require hearing on merits. In other words, we have not been able to notice any substantial ground in the case warranting its restoration.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good or sufficient ground made in the application for restoration of the case (first appeal). We are therefore constrained to dismiss the application for restoration of the first appeal.
No costs.
'••
,/
Sd/-
.f.
"Abhay Manohar Sapre
JUD GE
G. Minhajuaaui JU D G E
Thakur
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to restoration of the first appeal No. 77/2004 dismissed for want of prosecution.
Yogesh Soy
Secretary, Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Raipur
Another
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
