Allowed

K. Venkat Rao v. Ashwani Kumar Banjare

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2016MCC/418/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered an application for condonation of delay in filing MCC No. 418 of 2016, which was barred by 1239 days. The court satisfied itself that the delay was properly explained and granted condonation. Subsequently, the same order allowed the restoration of MAC No. 951 of 2011, dismissed for want of prosecution in 2012.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing MCC No. 418 of 2016; Restoration of MAC No. 951 of 2011 to its original number.

K. Venkat Rao Vs Ashwani Kumar Banjare — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCC No. 418 of 2016

¶4

K. Venkat Rao S/o Late K. Gopal, Aged About 45 Years Caste Balji, R/o Near New City Tailors, Jyoti Nagar, Zone 3, Sector-II, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)........(Appellant)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ashwani Kumar Banjare S/o Manikram Banhare, Aged About 39 Years R/o Semariya, P. S. Bhatapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).......... (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

Tineshwari Baghel, Wd/o Late Namdas Baghel, R/o Kathiya, P. S. Kharora, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)........(Owner)

¶9

Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Thakkar Chambers, Beside Of Ashish Hotel, Power House Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)........(Insurer)

¶10

Kishore Kumar Sahu, S/o Ganeshram Sahu, R/o Nehru Ward, Bhatapara, P. S. Bhatapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).......(Driver)

¶11

Angadram Sahu, S/o Dalluram Sahu, R/o Nayagant Ward, Bhatapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) .........(Owner)

¶12

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh).........(Insurer)

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent No.3 Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

Order On Board

11/8/2016

IA No.01

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC.

¶20

The MCC is barred by 1239 days.

¶21

It is stated in the application that when the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, an information was sent to the applicant, but he was out of station. Therefore, he could not instruct his counsel probably because he did not receive the information.

¶22

In the award impugned in the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the applicant has been awarded compensation of Rs.8081/-.

¶23

Considering the entirety of circumstances, we are satisfied that the delay in moving the application for restoration is properly explained, therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.

¶24

Accordingly, IA No.01 is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is condoned.

¶25

MCC No.418 of 2016

¶26

This is an application for restoration of MAC No.951 of 2011 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.04.2012.

¶27

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, it is allowed and MAC No.951 of 2011. is directed to be restored to its original number.

¶28

Sd/- Sd/-

¶29

Judge Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)

¶30

Shyna

K. Venkat Rao v. Ashwani Kumar Banjare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Venkat Rao v. Ashwani Kumar Banjare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hira Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sweta Kedia Vs Shri Pravin Kailashnath Kedia

Sushri Vimla Singh Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Leeladhar Sahu

Hari Narayan Mishra Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.