Order restoring Civil Revision No. 134/2013 after it was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application was allowed unopposed.
Nullified the dismissal of Civil Revision No. 134/2013 for want of prosecution and restored it to its original number.
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.
I N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS' RH AT BILASPU R M C C NO gm gs ggmm
(Ar/smqoutof orderdated18%;2014 passedbytheHon’bleSmqle
Judqe dismiss/nq the C/wl ReVISIon No 134/20132v"
APPLICANT
VArvind Kumar Dewangan s/e*Late Shri GDDewangan Aged about 40 years Propnetor— M/s Arvmd Kumar Dewangan Contractor (PWD And RES),_ High School Road, P.S. Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.)
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
Ch‘ief Engineer, Pubiic Works V” Department (B/R) Division, Narayanpur Division, Narayanpur (C.G.)
. State of Chhattisgarh, Through g Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantraiaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Ralpur(CG)
APPLICATION FOR RE§TORATION OF CIVIL REVISION NO.134/2013‘”"{
The applicant, above named, respectfully begs to submit as under:
That , the applicant had tiedl the civil revision, being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2013 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Chhattisgar—h ArbitrationaTribunal, ‘the Raipur (forshort Tribunal) in Reference Case No. 11/2010 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Reference Case allowmg the application filed by the respondent/State under section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh
Hm §a¥m
S.B.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR PRITINKER DIWAKER
04.03.2014
Ms. Naushina Ali, couns ei for the applicant.
Shri Adil Minhaz, PL for the State.
Heard on M.C.C. No. 1 86/14, which is an application for
restoration of C.R. No. 134/2 )13 which was dismissed by this
court vide order dated 18.02.2r )14 for want of prosecution.
This is not opposed byc‘ ounsel for the State.
For the reasons mentio ted in the application, the same is
allowed.
Accordingly, M.C.C. No 186/2014 is allowed and C.R. No.
134/2013 is restored to its orig inal number.
7/,,
/
‘Sdl‘
Diwaker
Pritftnker
‘ Judge
K
VArvind Kumar Dewangan
State of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
