Allowed

Bachchi Devi v. Urmila Gupta

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2016MCC/444/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh condoned a delay of 538 days in filing a restoration application for Second Appeal No. 65/2003. The Court allowed the application and restored the appeal to its original number, directing applicants to pay court costs.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of Second Appeal No. 65/2003 allowed; cost of Rs. 2500/- directed to be paid by applicants to Respondent No. 1.

Bachchi Devi Vs Urmila Gupta — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

MCC No. 444 of 2016

¶3

Bachchi Devi W/o Babaoo, Aged About 60 Years

¶4

Sitaram S/o Babaoo, Aged About 38 Years

¶5

Rajaram S/o Babaoo, Aged About 30 Years

¶6

Appellant No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village Kewra, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Shanti D/o Babaoo, W/o Ram Dular, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Pariyadanrh, Police Station Bhaiyathan, P.O. Dawna, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Krishna D/o Babaoo, W/o Bhuneshwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village/ Post Sirsi, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Rukman W/o Late Ganga Ram, Aged About 50 Years

¶10

Dharamraj S/o Late Gangaram, Aged About 30 Years

¶11

Shivadheen S/o Sonsai, Aged About 36 Years

¶12

Appellant No. 6 to 8 are R/o Village Kewra, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Sonmati W/o Late Ramadhin, Aged About 50 Years, Occupation Agriculture

¶14

10.Ramvilas S/o Late Ramadhin, Aged About 30 Years, Occupation- Agriculture,

¶15

11.Kailash S/o Late Ramadhin, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation- Agriculture,

¶16

12.Avilas S/o Late Shri Ramadhin, Aged About 18 Years, Occupation- Agriculture,

¶17

13.Amarnath S/o Late Shri Ramadhin, Aged About 16 Years, Occupation- Student, Minor Through Guardian Mother Sonamati,

¶18

Appellant No. 9 to 13 are R/o Village Kevra, P.S. Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶19

14.Shivnath S/o Late Nanka Ram, Aged About 52 Years R/o Karkoti, Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

15.Rameshwar S/o Bhagirathi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kewra, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶21

---- Applicants

¶22

Versus

¶23

Urmila Gupta Wd/o Late Radhe Shyam Gupta, Aged About 51 Years, 2. Anand Gupta S/o Late Radhey Shyam Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, 3. Vishudhyanand S/o Late Radhey Shyam Gupta, Aged About 27 Years, Respondent No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village Manendragarh Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶25

02/08/2016 Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the applicants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A. No. 1, which is application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. For the reason assigned in the application and the same being satisfactory, the delay in filing the restoration application of 538 days is condoned. Also heard on application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 65/2003. On due consideration of the submission made by the counsel and the reasons assigned in the said application and finding them to be satisfactory, in the opinion of this Court, the M.C.C. deserves to be and is accordingly allowed subject to the applicants paying

02/08/2016 Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the applicants.
Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meera
Jaiswal, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3.
Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 1, which is application for
condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
For the reason assigned in the application and the
same being satisfactory, the delay in filing the
restoration application of 538 days is condoned.
Also heard on application for restoration of Second
Appeal No. 65/2003.
On due consideration of the submission made by the
counsel and the reasons assigned in the said
application and finding them to be satisfactory, in the
opinion of this Court, the M.C.C. deserves to be and is
accordingly allowed subject to the applicants paying

¶26

	cost of Rs.2500/- to the respondent No. 1.
	The Second Appeal No. 65/2003 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21/11/2014 stands restored to its original number.
	Sd/-
K	(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

Bachchi Devi v. Urmila Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachchi Devi v. Urmila Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Niteen Saurya @ Raj Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Devendra Kumar

Kirtan Dansena Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jagat Raj Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Istiyak Answari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh