Allowed

Padum Ram v. Vijay Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2018MCC/40/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh condoned the delay in filing the restoration application and recalled the order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution, restoring the miscellaneous appeal to its original number.

What did the court decide?

The restoration application is allowed, the impugned order of dismissal dated 24.01.2006 is recalled, and the Miscellaneous Appeal is restored to M.A. No. 653 of 2005.

Padum Ram Vs Vijay Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCC No. 40 of 2018

¶4

Padum Ram S/o Shri Vishram Tandan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Churchutiya, Thana - Simga, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

Smt. Fatima Bai D/o Shri Vishram Tandan, R/o Village Jewari, Thana And Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Bhulau Ram Shandilay Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chorenga, Thana And Tahsil Simga, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Driver Of Motercycle Boxer CG 04-C-3919

¶8

Rajkumar S/o Shri Mahettar Lal Shandily R/o Village - Chorenga, Thana And Tahsil - Simga, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Registered Owner Of Motercylce Baxer Cg 04C-3919

¶9

Dayal Das Tandan S/o Shri Vishram Tandan R/o Village Jewari, Thana And Tahsil Bemetari, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Chaitu Ram S/o Vishram Tandan R/o Village Jewari, Thana And Tahsil Bemetari, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

Smt. Soni Bai D/o Shri Vishram Tandan R/o Village Jewari, Thana And Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents

¶12

For Applicants

¶13

: Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate

¶14

DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶15

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Order On Board

¶16

02/08/2018

¶17

Heard on I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

¶18

Upon due consideration, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application (MCC) is condoned.

¶19

Heard on prayer for restoration of the Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶20

Taking into consideration that for want of prosecution, claim application filed by claimants being relatives of deceased, who died in road accident, was dismissed and taking into consideration the ground urged in the application, we are inclined to recall the order of dismissal dated 24.01.2006 and restored to its original number M.A. No.653 of 2005.The MCC is accordingly allowed.

¶21

The cost of Rs.250/- shall be deposited in the Legal Aid Committee and receipt shall be filed.

¶22

Sd/Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor) Judge Judge

¶23

Rekha

Padum Ram v. Vijay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padum Ram v. Vijay Kumar

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

Deepak Agrawal Vs Smt. Gulab Bai

Madhyapradesh Jesuits Loyola Niketan Lingiyadeha Vs Shri Ravatpura Sarkar Ashram

Smt. Monika Vs Shri Sanjay Chandel