Allowed¶25

Kripa Ram Sahu v. Santuram Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC21 Aug 2025MCC/466/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (DB, order per Rajani Dubey, J.; with Bibhu Datta Guru, J.), 22.08.2025, MCC No. 466 of 2025 (2025:CGHC:42674-DB): MCC allowed restoring FA No. 100 of 2020 to its original number after its dismissal on peremptory order dated 17.12.2024; 90-day delay in filing condoned via I.A. No. 01/2025; restoration conditional on Rs.5,000 cost to High Court Legal Aid Services Committee; paper-book within two weeks. Parties: Kripa Ram Sahu (applicant; Def No. 2 below) v. Santuram Yadav (plaintiff), LRs of deceased Gopal Prasad Sen, and State of Chhattisgarh.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 90 days in filing the MCC condoned; FA No. 100 of 2020 restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- before the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee; paper-book to be filed within two weeks. ¶25

Kripa Ram Sahu Vs Santuram Yadav — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:42674-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 466 of 2025

¶6

1 - Kripa Ram Sahu, S/o Heeralal Sahu, Aged about 82 years, R/o E-5, Shatabdi Nagar, Telibandha Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Def No. 2)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Santuram Yadav, S/o Shri Itwari Ram Yadav, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Vill. Kasekera, P.H.No. 57/38 Revenue Circle Komakhan, Tah. Baghbahera, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶9

2 - Gopal Prasad Sen (Since Deceased) Through Lrs

¶10

2.1 - (I) Smt. Meena Kaushik (Deleted) Wd/o Gopal Prasad Sen Aged About 53 Years

¶11

2.2 - (ii) Romu Kaushik S/o Late Gopal Prasad Sen Aged About 30 Years

¶12

2.3 - (Iii) Ankit Kaushik S/o Late Gopal Prasad Sen Aged About 27 Years

¶13

2.4 - (iv) Shrawan Kaushik S/o Late Gopal Prasad Sen Aged About 25 Years All are R/o Nagar Naka Chowk, Ratan Colony, Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, Tah. P.S. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶14

3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Def No. 3)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

¶17

For Applicant	:Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/ State	:Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General

¶18

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

¶21

22.08.2025

¶22

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025 which is an application for condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the instant application.

¶23

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same (I.A. No. 01/2025) stands allowed. The delay of 90 days in filing the instant MCC is hereby condoned.

¶24

Present MCC has been filed seeking restoration of FA No. 100 of 2020 which was dismissed on peremptory order dated 17.12.2024.

¶25

On due consideration, the Bench finds bonafide reasons on the part of the applicant in filing of MCC. Accordingly, MCC stands allowed and FA No. 100 of 2020 stands restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- before the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee.

¶26

Counsel for the applicant is directed to ensure that the paper-book be filed within a period of two weeks.

¶27

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶28

Ruchi

¶29

RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed byRUCHI YADAV

Kripa Ram Sahu v. Santuram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripa Ram Sahu v. Santuram Yadav

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

Badrinath Devangan Vs Smt. Saraswati Devangan

O.P. Singh Vs Union of India

Suresh Kumar Kurre Vs Ku. Khushbu Kurre

Saturn Ferro Alloys, Situated Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Smt. Sagarika Bhoi Vs Bijeyendra Bhoi

U. Chandrashekhar Vs Smt. Sarita