Union of India v. Suresh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Apr 2025MCC/394/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur order dated 24.04.2025 in MCC No. 394 of 2025; restoration application allowed; recall of order dated 11.03.2025 dismissing WPS No. 2532/2021 for want of prosecution; writ petition restored to original number; applicants Union of India / South East Central Railway / Divisional Railway Manager / Regional Personnel Officer (S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur/Raipur); respondent Suresh; counsel Ms. Annapurna (for Mr. Ramakant Mishra DSG) and Mr. D. D. Yadav; bench Rajani Dubey J and Sachin Singh Rajput J; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 2532/2021 and restoration of WPS No. 2532/2021 to its original number; the MCC was thereafter disposed of. ¶¶23

Union of India Vs Suresh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCC No. 394 of 2025

¶5

1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur (Cg) 495004

¶6

HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

¶7

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.04.24 14:38:59 +0530

¶8

2 - South East Central Railway Through The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur (Cg), 495004

¶9

3 - Divisional Railway Manager C/o S.E.C. Rly, Drm Office, Fafadih, Raipur (Cg) 492008

¶10

4 - Regional Personnel Officer C/o S.E.C. Rly, Drm Office, Fafadih, Raipur (Cg) 492008

¶11

... Applicant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

Suresh S/o Shri Raju Aged About 56 Years R/o Qtr. No. 95-D Bhilai-3 P.O- Bhilai- 3 Dist., Durg (Cg) 490021

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Applicant : Ms. Annapurna on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra DSG, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. D. D. Yadav, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

24.04.2025

¶19

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

¶20

This MCC has been filed for restoration of WPS No. 2532/2021 which was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-appearance of the counsel in the matter is bonafide. She further submits that mistake and omission is neither deliberate nor intentional, therefore, prays that this MCC may be allowed.

¶23

Considering the grounds urged in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 2532/2021 is recalled. The WPS No. 2532/2021 is restored to its original number.

¶24

Accordingly, MCC disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-	Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)	(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge	Judge

¶26

H.Ansari

Union of India v. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neelu Vs Smt. Urmila Devi

Pradeep Jain Vs M.D.Tiwari

Suna Ram Uikey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Union of India Vs Ramnath (Died)

Union of India Vs Raghunath

Firm Bed Sheet House Vs Smt. Satwant Kaur Saluja