Dismissed

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Tamrakar

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2016MCC/800/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an application for condonation of delay as reasons for ignorance of a dismissal order were unsatisfactory. Consequently, it also barred a Miscellaneous Criminal Case filed to restore the civil revision.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; M.C.C. dismissed by limitation.

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCC No. 800 of 2016

¶4

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through its Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Charoda, District Durg (CG)

¶5

---- Applicant/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramesh Tamrakar, son of Late Gulab Chand Tamrakar, aged about 38 years, resident of Qtr. No. MA 24, Padam Nagar, Bhilai – 3, Tehsil – Patan, District – Durg (CG)

¶8

----Non-applicant/Respondent

¶9

For Applicant – Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order on Board

¶11

07-12-2016

¶12

The instant MCC has been preferred after 207 days of its limitation for a prayer to restore Civil Revision No.102/2013 dismissed for want of prosecution on 05-02-2016.

¶13

Heard on I.A.No.1/2016 for condonation of delay.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the dismissal of said civil revision came to the notice of counsel for the applicant only on 23-092016 when the applicant department enquired about the status of said revision and then dismissal for non-prosecution on 05-02-2016 was surfaced. Thereafter, after obtaining the certified copy of the order, the applicant preferred the instant MCC for a prayer to restore the civil revision. Hence, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the MCC may be heard on its merit.

¶15

Perused the order dated 05-02-2016. In said civil revision, present applicant had been represented through counsel. On perusal of facts mentioned in I.A.No.1/2016, reasons shown for date of knowledge is not satisfactory. As per procedure of law, cause list is published, counsel duly represented. It shall be duty of the party to take up and know about the listing

¶16

-2-

¶17

of the matter. In absence of any satisfactory cause, in the considered view of this Court, I.A.No.1/2016 is not maintainable, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the MCC also stands dismissed being barred by limitation by 207 days.

¶18

Sd/- (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE

¶19

Aadil

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Tamrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Tamrakar

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

Rajesh Vs State

Smt. Kavita Singh Vs Rahul Kumar Choubey

Vinay Mohan Mishra Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Now Chhattisgarh

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Prakash Kaur

Smt. Mamta Chandra Vs Nandkumar

Balram Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.