Allowed¶28

Surjeet Singh Khanuja v. Bahadur Singh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Feb 2025MCC/521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Single Bench (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal), MCC No. 521 of 2024, order on board 19.02.2025: applicants Surjeet Singh Khanuja and Daljeet Singh Khanuja sought restoration of F.A No.152/2018, which had been dismissed in default by order dated 04/02/2021 because their counsel pleaded no instructions when the appeal was called for hearing; respondents No.2 and 3 objected that sufficient reasons were not assigned for restoration; holding that the applicants had not instructed their earlier counsel to plead no instructions, the Court allowed the M.C.C., restored the appeal to its original number, and made no order as to costs. No statutes or precedents were cited.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of F.A. No.152/2018 to its original number; no order as to costs. ¶28

Surjeet Singh Khanuja Vs Bahadur Singh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8633

¶3

Digitally signed by VAISHALI VAISHALI LUCKY LUCKY NAGARIA NAGARIA Date: 2025.02.19 18:11:12 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCC No. 521 of 2024

¶7

Surjeet Singh Khanuja S/o Late Shri Raja Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bannak Chowk Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

Daljeet Singh Khanuja S/o Late Shri Raja Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bannak Chowk Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

Bahadur Singh S/o Late Shri Raja Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bannak Chowk Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

Gurameet Singh S/o Late Shri Raja Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bannak Chowkpur Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

Surendra Singh S/o Late Shri Raja Singh R/o Sirgitti Thana Sirgitti Bilaspur Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

... Non-applicants

¶16

For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 and : Ms. Prakriti Deo, Advocate

¶17

¶18

For State/Respondent No.4 : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.

¶19

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Order on Board

19.02.2025

Heard on admission.

¶24

This M.C.C. has been fled for restoration of F.A No.152/2018, i which was dismissed in default by this Court vide order dated 04/02/2021, as counsel engaged by the appellants had pleaded no instructions on the said day.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the counsel engaged by them had pleaded no instructions on the said day i.e. 04.02.2021, but “no instructions” as such was, however, not given to him and, therefore, the said appeal which was dismissed in default may kindly be restored to its original number.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has raised an objection that since the suf fi cient reasons have not been assigned for the restoration of the said appeal, therefore, the petition as made deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties and considering further that since the applicants had not instructed to their earlier counsel to plead no instructions when the said appeal was called for hearing on 04.02.2021, I am, therefore, inclined to allow this petition.

¶28