Allowed

Ku. Roopsagar (Dead) through Legal Heir- Lokesh Kumar Ramteke v. Smt. Phooleshwari Bai (Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2026MA/43/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a miscellaneous appeal against an order rejecting an application for restoration of an unregistered civil appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court held the appellant's explanation bona fide and directed restoration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27-2-2023 set aside; civil appeal restored to stage as of 23-9-2022; appellate Court to decide within four months.

Ku. Roopsagar (Dead) through Legal Heir- Lokesh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010108672023

2026:CGHC:31558

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MA No. 43 of 2023

¶7

Ku. Roopsagar (Dead) Through Legal Heir- Lokesh Kumar Ramteke S/o Mehattar, Alias Chandra Kumar, Age About-36 Years, R/o Village-Tikari, Tehsil-Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. D/o Late Abhay Ram, R/o Village- Tikari, Tehsil-Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.)(Plaintiff)

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Phooleshwari Bai (Dead) Through Legal Heirs- Nil

¶11

1.1 - Balram S/o Ludu Ram (Wrongly Mentioned As Lutu) Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

1.2 - Shyam Kumar S/o Ludu Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

1.3 - Digvijay Kumar S/o Ludu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

1.4 - Mehattar Alias Chandra Kumar S/o Late Abhay Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Tikari, Tehsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Collector Balod (C.G.).

¶16

--- Respondents

¶17

For Appellant	: Mr. Uttam Chandra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. R.K. Gumasta,Adv.
For Respondents No. 1.1	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv.
to 1.4
For Respondent No. 2	: Ms. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶18

¶19

(Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J)

Order on Board

22-7-2027

With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶24

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶25

The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 27-2-2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Balod in Misc. Civil Suit No. 39/2022, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC"), seeking restoration of the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution on 23-9-2022, has been rejected.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an unregistered civil appeal was filed before the District Judge, Balod on 9-3-2022. Thereafter, on the date fixed, i.e., 16-8-2022, his counsel informed him that the appeal had been listed for hearing on 29-9-2022. However, when the appellant appeared before the Court on 29-9-2022, he came to know that the unregistered appeal had already been dismissed for want of prosecution on 23-9-2022. It is submitted that, on account of the incorrect date communicated by his counsel, the appellant could not remain present on 23-9-2022. Immediately thereafter, the appellant filed an application for restoration on 29-9-2022, i.e., within six days from the date of dismissal of the appeal. It is, therefore, contended that the absence of the appellant on the relevant date was bona fide. Despite the aforesaid facts, the learned District Judge rejected the restoration applica-

¶27

¶28

tion, which is contrary to law. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the learned District Judge, Balod be directed to restore the civil appeal to its original position as it stood on 23-9-2022.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1.1 to 1.4 opposed the appeal and supported the impugned order.

¶30

Learned State counsel submits that the State is only a formal party to the present proceedings.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶32

A perusal of the record reveals that the unregistered civil appeal was filed on 9-3-2022. Thereafter, the matter was listed on six occasions, yet the appeal was not registered. The respondents had already entered appearance on 28-6-2022. The restoration application was filed on 29-9-2022, merely six days after the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The explanation furnished by the appellant that he could not appear on 23-9-2022 because his counsel had inadvertently communicated the next date of hearing as 29-9-2022 appears to be bona fide. The restoration application was also filed without any undue delay. In such circumstances, the learned District Judge ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the application for restoration. The rejection of the restoration application, despite the satisfactory explanation offered by the appellant, cannot be sustained in law.

¶33

Consequently, the present Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure A-1) dated 27-2-2023 passed in Misc. Civil Suit No. 39/2022 is hereby set aside. The learned District Judge, Balod is directed to restore and register the unregistered civil appeal titled

¶34

¶35

Ku. Rupsagar (dead) through LRs Lokesh Kumar v. Smt. Fuleshwari (dead) through LRs Balram & Others to the stage at which it stood on 23-9-2022, and thereafter proceed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of restoration.

¶36

Learned counsel for both the parties shall extend full cooperation to the appellate Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal. They shall also ensure the appearance of their respective parties before the appellate Court on 11-8-2026.

¶37

The original record of the unregistered civil appeal be returned forthwith along with a copy of this order.

¶38

Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Pathak

¶43

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.23 16:23:42 +0530

Ku. Roopsagar (Dead) through Legal Heir- Lokesh Kumar Ramteke v. Smt. Phooleshwari Bai (Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Roopsagar (Dead) through Legal Heir- Lokesh Kumar Ramteke v. Smt. Phooleshwari Bai (Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farhana Bi Vs Israr Mohammad

Mrs. Sunita Yadav Vs Mrs. Panchbati Bai Yadav

Bhagirathi Tamrakar Vs Bhi. Maheshwar Rao

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mayank Pratap Sahu

Smt. Laxmi Rao Dongre Vs Paras Ramtekey

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Ramrijhawan Das