Municipal Council Tilda Vs Maa Electrical Works

Maa Electrical Works Through Proprietor Vinod Kumar Soni, S/o D Soni, R/o Near Govt. Girls High Secondary School, Nevra, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Respondent

¶16

For applicants : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Adv. For Respondent : None.

¶17

2

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

16-6-2026

¶21

1 Heard on I.A. No. 1/2017, application for condonation of delay in filing instant MCC.

¶22

2 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that First Appeal No. 202/2009, filed by the applicants/appellants before this Court, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.12.2015. It is further submitted that the appeal was listed for final hearing; however, the counsel for the appellants could not appear on the date fixed as the matter had not reached for hearing. Thereafter, the Court vacation commenced, and the applicants remained under the impression that the matter was still pending and would be listed again for final hearing. However, the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.12.2015. Subsequently, when the applicants approached their counsel to ascertain the status of the case, an application for urgent hearing dated 16.08.2017 was filed. It was only then that the applicants came to know that the appeal had already been dismissed on 04.12.2015. Learned counsel submits that, on account of the aforesaid circumstances, a delay of 591 days occurred in filing the present MCC seeking restoration of the first appeal. He, therefore, prays that the delay be condoned.

¶23

3 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material available on record.

¶24

4 A perusal of the record reveals that First Appeal No. 202/2009 was dismissed on 04.12.2015. Thereafter, the applicants remained inactive for a

¶25

3

¶26

period of 591 days. The explanation furnished by the applicants for condonation of the aforesaid inordinate delay does not appear to be bona fide. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 591 days. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2017 is rejected.

¶27

5 Consequently, the MCC also stands dismissed.

¶28

6 Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶31

pathak

Municipal Council Tilda v. Maa Electrical Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council Tilda v. Maa Electrical Works

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. Lakeshwari Sahu Vs Ramesh Kumar Sahu

Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Rewati Sahu

Ramkumar Aditya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Thakur Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Shyam Sundar Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh