Smt. Kalpana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010242162026 2026:CGHC:27655

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 584 of 2026

¶6

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.06 17:10:29 +0530

¶7

Smt. Kalpana D/o Sonuram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Karhi, DistrictMungeli (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Revenue At District Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶11

2 - Vijya Dayal W/o Late Dayaramdayal R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Digvijaya S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Dushyant Dayal S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Divya Rani Dayal D/o Dayaram Dayal R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶15

6 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶16

7 - Santosh Kumar S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶17

8 - Surendra Kumar S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶18

9 - Akhilekh S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶19

10 - Prakash S/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶20

11 - Alpana D/o Sonuram R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶21

12 - Sonia Bai D/o Ujain Das R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶22

13 - Tili Bai D/o Ujain Das R/o Karhi District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶23

... Respondents.

¶24

2

¶25

For Applicant : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. For State/Res No.1 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

¶26

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶27

Order on Board

¶28

06/07/2026

¶29

Heard on application for restoration of WPC No.3500/2023 (Smt. Kalpana Vs. State of CG) which was dismissed on 22.02.2024 in compliance of peremptory order dated 03.01.2024 passed by this Court, as the petitioner failed to rectify the default pointed out by the Registry within time.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since, at the relevant time, some Revenue records were not available with the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not rectify the defects within stipulated period, original consequent to which, the case was dismissed for by peremptory order. She also submits that non-removal of default within time was not intentional. Therefore, the original writ petition may be restored for hearing.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State has no objection.

¶32

On due consideration and considering the submission made by counsel for the applicant in the application which is well supported by the affidavit, this Court is inclined to allow the instant MCC.

¶33

Accordingly, the MCC is allowed . Registry shall restore WPC No.3500/2023 to its original number and list the case for hearing before the appropriate Bench.

¶34

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶35

Ajay

Smt. Kalpana v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalpana v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Motilal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neel Kumari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gangaram Vs Junior Engineer Takhatpur

Suresh Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh