Allowed

Naini BAIand Ors. v. Shivnandan and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2012MCC/90/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarth allowed a restoration application to recover from dismissal due to want of prosecution. The court excused the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, finding it bona fide. Consequently, the dismissed First Appeal No. 17/2001 was restored to its original file for hearing on merits. No notice was issued to respondents as they were absent during the original dismi

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in restoration allowed; impugned order dated 26-06-2002 recalled; First Appeal No. 17/2001 restored to file for hearing on merits.

Naini BAIand Ors. Vs Shivnandan and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

•'^
,4'

¶2

.i.^'^^---^'L.^'ljT,-'
^
:
y ^^
IlU'HE HIGH COURT OP JLTOICATURE AT BILASPUF. (C.G,)
.M.C.O. N0 .vyQ J1QQ-2.

¶3

^ippELLANTS s 1. Naini 3a-i. , D/o Dashrath prasad, PLA-INTIFFS ,,/ Caste-Brahmin, aged 52 years, resident of Scuabai-pur, Tahsil Dindlluhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶4

Urm-i.la Bai. D/o Dashrath Prasad, agecl 49 years, Caste - Brahrain, resident of Pareguda, Tari. Balod, D-I.B tt.tt Dlix^ g (.^-•'^ c ) ,

¶5

2.
,^M
^>'^
'/y
<^0-
^.
<>-
i^.p O N i^JiiN 'l^i ; 1.
U^j; l^ LyUM ii:

¶6

VE R £ US

¶7

Shivnandan praSc.d S/o Dasiirath Prasad, Caste - Brahmin, aged 51 years, resident of Khursipar, Tah. Balod, Dlstt. Durg (C.G.J.

¶8

Ishwari S/o S.hivnandan PruEad, Caste - Branm-n, aged 27 years, resiaent of Khursipar, Tah. Salod. Distt. Durg (C.G.).

¶9

'•
ff '-^ \v.<br>•:<br>s,
[Q^/
^y

¶10

Gangajali Wd/o Girjashsnkar, Caste Gupta. aged 55 years, Ganja Thekedar, resident of aalod, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.$.

¶11

SLikali-iram S./o Fardesh, Caste Sonksr | aged 35 years, R/o Khursipar, Tshsll 3alod. Bistt. Durg (C.G.).

¶12

r-';^

¶13

Rartuiin BaJ. Kd/o Gsngu. Sonkar, aged 60 years,

¶14

Bnarat Lal S/o Gangu Sonkar, aged 46 years.

¶15

¶16

Rarnbharosa S/o Gangu. Sonkar, aged 37 y-s'ars, Nos. 5 to 7 are resicients o£ village ^hursljser, Tanl. Salod, Distt. Qarg (C.G.;.

¶17

Hira 3ai D/o Gc.ngurara Sonkar, aged 32 yes.rs, resident of Balod, Tahsil Balod, Qistt. Durg (C.G.).

¶18

¶19

Puniya 3ai na./o 3irju Rem Caste - Halba, aged 35 years, resldent or Khursipsr, Tah. Balod Distt.Dlirg (CG$.

¶20

¶21

State of Qihattisgarh Ti-irough Collector, Durg (C.G.).

¶22

Ll.

¶23

S-i-ta Bai D/o Dashrath Caste-Brahmin, aged 45 years, reslcisnt or Khairmati, 'D.S.stt. Tah. Bemetara, Durg (C.G.).

¶24

^ipPLICATlOK FOR RESTORATION OF THE PETITIOK FXLiSD UN.U^R S..£;CTIQN 5 OF THE LIM-CTATZCH M-T ;

¶25

..L.to s uam.Lt

¶26

¶27

<»':""**llt <it,..'6:l»^<& i''sjl>fc,p,»<g,\ \ ^^^> c<sup>•:<t

¶28

tai^trl^^Ti?FS.£^ ^i^Uz€.''i'^•^^'St'V^iT^ ^~iT?-Ui*' -"^I.^'s^i/slsl^mfis^i-jaKffiA^^Ti?^^^a-^k?_'F ^i.TA'T'1 'FS'S'so&iAC&^.r'yrS,& fl?i-5^'?TS-> V1X 1¥&«^>B^'» .^f, tf4 •nyd^; iisu' g^-^\ s'v t^ff-^{^^~t} ^ti.f^t.^Si.,-^ ^eW^

¶29

Ayi-I^it-iAHTS/

¶30

'St'-^I^t-^& ^

¶31

i^auii tiffii aua au.ouier.

¶32

^iUviic^.iUcHi .r-'i'a.sau a;.i^. oUiers.

¶33

DaB: HoH.'fole B^ri AbliaT Masioliar Sapte ® Hoa'ble Shri G. Miahaiuddin. JJ.

¶34

^a>r'£-£<f2^/^a.-£-l^i%_& ^QT ^^-^ ,&.'TiLT4'^^T r-'^s^'E^.^^'Ea "F???^;TL.^^^5s^&Q-'s.'^x'^J&S.'s.^Siai.'^T^.s.'&T ^s--'•?^-?s i-R'Fy^^.-T;P'£.£^~^~s&£SS-'s^^.s^S @¥6T?i. & Tr yiiJI,%T^^ ^. Z S ^S'^'^F -t.

¶35

P^ese^t^ Sliii D,N. PT^ja.p&ti. couiisd IOT uie sppiicsuits.

¶36

¶37

ORAL.OHOBR (Passed 021 13th day ofjaly, 3012)

¶38

¶39

Heard oii M(C.)P. No. 1525/2002.

¶40

^. irus is aj-i appii.cau.oii Bi&ae oy la.e appucaiiis 101 coriaoiiauoii GI asiay lu luiag uie resioranou appiicauon ansiiig oui 01 uie ojxi&r aEiiea ^u-^y-^uu-; passea 111 rix'&i Apps&i i^o.i/ ;^;uui. IL is OciH'Ka 0V OU UilVte.

¶41

Haviiig lieaixl learneu counsel Jbr the applicaiits aiid haviug gone througu the contents of fhe appijjcatksii whicu 1s duly suppcTted by aii a.ulda.vit of fb.e appUcants, we aje sa.tisfled tuat :good aiid sunlcieiit groiuid is sliowB. 011 tlic aptjilcatiou wlilcli coustitu.tes a sufficieiit cause ibi coiidori.&tiuu of delay iu iluiis fh.e a.ppuca.uoii zor resiorauon.

¶42

Iii our opio.ioii, condoiiiiig tlie delay advaiices the cause of Justice. On tlie other liaudy not coiidonlag tb.e dela.y wotild defeat the veiy puipose of claiijQliig suDstELiitl&ljustice.

¶43

o. it is iioi iiecessaxy 10 issue aiiy uouce 01 uus appis.cauon 10 tlie resDOiidcD.ts because 011 tlie date of dlsiD.lssaI of tlie mala appe&I, counsel for uie respoudeiits was iiot ureseiit iii the Coiu't. 6. AccordiD.gly, lu the ii.glit of the foregoiiig dlscussloj;i, appiiCci.tiOB. ibr condoixation ol delav ia llilng tb.e restor^tion appUcatioii iD.ad-e bv the appUeaiits is aUowed.

¶44

!*, :!:":'-1:;;!';.

¶45

•T)

¶46

/. A1SO Iieal'u. 011 iu.erlLS oi uie i'esiorauoB. a.pDuca.uoii.

¶47

¶48

'Tliis 1s an application m.ade by tlie appllcaiits wlio were th.e a.ppeUaiits of F'ii'st Appeal No. 17/2001 aiid. lia.d. filccl the said appeal ag'aliist tlie Jud.g^iient axiu u-ecree uatecl 3I-03-2QOO passeu- by AddlUoiial DlstTlct Jucle'e. Ba-iod, DIsu'ict Dure' iu ClvU Suit No.12A/99. Tlie said. appeal caiii.e for liesi'lD.g beibre uic leai'iied. Suig'le uuage OD. ^o-uo-^uu^. oiace no oxxe appe&rea lor DOUI uie parueSj tlie leax'iied. Siiigle uudge-rlrst A|jpella.te Court disnilssed the sald appeai tbr want ot prosecuttori. it is agaiaMt 11113 ord.er 01 d.iSLijLisyai^. th-e appeuaxitis of the said appeal have filed tliis i1estoratioii appucauoii ior setTiii^ asiae / recs i u n g 01 uie oraer aaiea ^o-uo2002 ajid for clalLoiiig restoratiou of tlie appeaJ. for its hearliig 011 HieiiLS.

¶49

9- This appUcatlon is placed before this CoLU't a.s per rules oecause 111 TB.C .tiieajiiioie uie leamea oiiigie uuage wno iiaa dem.itted tlie ofjLlce.

¶50

ru. we iia.ve goiie uirougii xiie cs.use sia.tea ID. uic: ^puii.ca.uoii 101 restora.tioii of F'li'st Appeal No. 17/2001. It is duly supported with a-n. afildavit of tiie a.ppUcaiits. Haviiig gone uiTough the causej we kire sa.tisfled wiui the ca.use pleacled ID. the a.ppUca.tioii wliicli iy Just; boiia fide yiid genuio.e. It tlierefore. coiistitutes a StLulcieii.t ca.use wiLOiu uie iTieaniii^ 01 oro.er^"ti jxuj.e ±y 01 LD.f: ^-oue 01^'L/ivii Procedui'e aiid otlieji'wise also. 11 deseives to Ue aud. accordliiglv &ccepieu- a-s ueiug & sumcieiii ca.use.

¶51

Incleed. restoritig the appeal to its orj^uiai file for beiug heard oii iiienis sausrv uie pmiciuies 01 aoins' suDSTaxiUfcii rasuce TO uie pames Deca.use uisixussai ox aiiv ca.se^IB. a&iauii aiwavs aepnve^ci persoii froia liis legal right of heaTiUR ou nierlts. Ixideed. this is what was held bv tlie SuDreiue Cotu't ID. oue ofits locus classic case rcporteu. ni ^UIR. Ay£?o s^u ^•^5£> |esaaa^a^a esisiga vs* s^ieefaoa 'inoatiaij. Wc lolluw Uiis uiniuipic ia.iu. u.owii uy uic aupi'ciuc Couit to. Saiigraio. Stagh s case (supra) for recsillliig of the loj.pugiied oixier. 12, Accordiiigiy aiid. lii th.e liglit of the ibregonig discussiou, Uic a-ppUcaUon niade DY tiie aopllc&u.ts (ayDcllajits uf Fiist Auoeal

¶52

¶53

No. 17/2001} succeeds aiid is li.ereoy allowed. Oixler da.ted 26-062002 p&ssed lu PLTSt ApDeal No. 17/2001 is hei'eijv i'ec£LLlc:d.

¶54

As a r'esiut, Pirst Appeal No. 17/2001 is restoreu. to its flle for its b.eario-g on luerits in accordaiice with law. Offlce is directed to Ilst tbLe apoeal befoif: approDrifrite Beiicli as oer rules.

¶55

We niav hasteu to a.dd tliat .11 is uot iiecessai'v to Issue aiiv D.otice to the respoiideiits beca.use 011 tlie date (2G-OG-2G02) wheu the a.ppesl wa.s diszuissed. &r waut of prosecutLo.ti, the respoiidciits lia.d not ^ppeaTt;u. aiicl therefoi'e, uic i'espoudeiits ai'e: iiot eutitlcd to be cLiiy notice to oppose tbis restoratioD. appUcation. giveu However, tlie respoudeiits would be &ntitled to a notice of date of ^ lieariag of the appeal after restoratioii SLS and wheii i.t is Usted for hearing befox'c appropriate AppeUate: Couxt aiid before ajiy fkial oraers axe passea in. uie saia a.uoea-L.

¶56

A copy of tliis order be lsc:pt iii the flle of thc case of F'.A. no. -l / /' ^uui lor reconi.

¶57

Let tiie appeal F.A. No. 17/2001 ue now Usted for further oraers 1x1 uie iiexi weeK.

¶58

Sd/-
Sd/-
f M-.V^'t^ _^ ^^ - -- 'rf^ „ ——- ^ ifcr^t^. Sfisaias'tiiQcaix&jnef _^ g- A¥^-. _g -t < „a

Naini BAIand Ors. v. Shivnandan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naini BAIand Ors. v. Shivnandan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satrughan Yadav Vs Sakun Yadav

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs H.P. Kindo

Ram Ratan Yadav Vs Smt. Syamabai

S.E.C.L. through G.M. and Ors. Vs Murari Lal Agrawal

Life Insurance Corp. of India Vs Sanat Kumar Pandey

Kartik and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.