The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed an application (MCC No. 983 of 2024) to set aside an order dismissing FA(MAT) No. 39/2020 for want of prosecution and restored the case subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Dismissal of FA(MAT) No. 39/2020 for want of prosecution set aside and case restored to original number upon payment of Rs. 2,000/-.
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 / 2
2024:CGHC:43103-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 983 of 2024
... Applicant
versus
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : None.
(Division Bench)
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(06.11.2024 )
2 / 2
Sd/Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
Sourabh P.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of FA(MAT) No. 39/2020 for want of prosecution should be set aside upon explanation of unavoidable absence.
Whether the cause shown merit allowing restoration of the original case.
Smt. Saroj W/o Videsh Kumar Sahu
Videsh Kumar S/o Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu
Rajani Dubey
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
