Allowed
Dhamtaria @ Laxman Sinha Through Lrs v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh HCMCC/456/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 456 of 201…
What the court decided
AI extract
CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 456 of 201…
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.C.C. No. 456 of 201 6
Dhamtaria @ Laxman Sinha (Since deceased) through LRs:
---- Applicants
Versus
4(A) Amir, aged about 50 years, son of Late Mukund, resident of Village Adipathar, R.I. Circle Mainpur, P.S. Devbhog, District Gariyabandh (C.G.)
4(B) Konda, aged about 40 years, son of Late Mukund, resident of Village Adipathar, R.I. Circle Mainpur, P.S. Devbhog, District Gariyabandh (C.G.)
4(C) Jaiman, aged about 30 years, son of Late Mukund, resident of Village Adipathar, R.I. Circle Mainpur, P.S. Devbhog, District Gariyabandh (C.G.)
2
4(D) Kushal, aged about 25 years, son of late Mukund, resident of Village Adipathar, R.I. Circle Mainpur, P.S. Devbhog, District Gariyabandh (C.G.)
4(E) Dhanu, aged about 20 years, son of Late Mukund, resident of Village Adipathar, R.I. Circle Mainpur, P.S. Devbhog, District Gariyabandh (C.G.)
[No. 4A to E are legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 4- Mukund].
---- Respondent
For Applicants: Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Mr. Om P. Sahu, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
2 3 /09 /2016
(1) Heard on I.A. No.1/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the M.C.C..
(2) On due consideration, I am satisfied that the applicants have succeeded in explaining the cause of delay in filing the M.C.C. and, therefore, the application { I.A. No.1/2016} is allowed. Delay in filing the M.C.C. is condoned.
(4) The applicants are seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 827/2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 05.02.2015.
(5) On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, I am satisfied that the absence of the applicants’ counsel on 05.02.2015
when Writ Petition No.827/2002 was taken-up for hearing was based
3
on bona fide grounds.
(6) M.C.C. No. 456/2016, therefore, is allowed and Writ Petition No. 827/2002 is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
D/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in condonation for restoration should be allowed of a writ petition dismissed for lack of prosecution in previous year.
Whether restoration of an old writ petition is justified.
Sumer Sinha
Muner Sinha
Shyczyamlal Sinha
Hemlal Sinha
Rajkumar Sinha
Shivkumar Sinha
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court