Allowed¶36

L.L Gabel v. Sarva Nand Gehi

Chhattisgarh HC2 Mar 2026MCC/688/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court order allowing an MCC for restoration of FA No. 218 of 2018 dismissed for want of prosecution after a peremptory order; 836-day delay explained as bona fide counsel mistake; restoration conditional on Rs. 10,000/- costs to High Court Legal Aid Committee; decided 03/03/2026 by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of FA No. 218 of 2018 to its original number, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. ¶36

L.L Gabel Vs Sarva Nand Gehi — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:10962

NAFR

RAHUL JHA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.03.03 15:08:25 +0530

¶7

MCC No. 688 of 2022

¶8

1 - L.L Gabel S/o Jhumuk Lal Gabel, Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. C- 86, Sector - 6, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - R.S. Bajpai S/o Ram Kumar Bajpai Aged About 65 Years R/o House No. C- 86, Sector - 6, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Ashok Natthani S/o Uddham Das Natthani Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. C-89, Sector - 6, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Chhaya Bihone W/o M.L. Bihone Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. C- 90, Sector - 6, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Kishan Lal Sethiya S/o Ram Dipta Sethiya Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. C-88, Sector - 6, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

..Petitioner(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - Sarva Nand Gehi S/o Bambu Mal Gehi Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. A-7, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

¶17

2 - Smt. Pooja Gehi W/o Jagdish Gehi Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. A-

¶18

7, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

3 - Vijay Gehi S/o Roop Chand Gehi, Aged About 50 Years R/o Kelkar Para, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

4 - L.K. Solanki S/o Kanji Solanki Aged About 72 Years R/o House No. C-87, Sector - 6, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

5 - Tej Kumar Bajaj S/o C.J. Bajaj Aged About 52 Years R/o Katora Talab, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

6 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

7 - Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

8 - Rajiv Grih Nirman Samiti, Through Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

Respondent(s)

¶26

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶27

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate
For Resp No. 1 & 3	: Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate
For Resp No. 2	: Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate
For Resp No. 5	: Ms. Isha Jajodia, Advocate
For Resp. No. 7	: Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate

¶28

Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

¶29

Order on Board

¶30

03/03/2026

¶31

This MCC has been filed for restoration of FA No. 218 of 2018, which was dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to a peremptory order.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to a bona fide

¶33

¶34

mistake, he could not remove the default within time, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by referring the reply submitted by them, would submit that the petitioner filed the instant MCC on the basis of false and fabricated facts. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the application is not tenable and sufficient cause has been shown for the hefty delay of 836 days.

¶36

Upon due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of judice, the MCC is allowed. FA No. 218 of 2018 is restored to its original number, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-, payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶39

Jyoti/Rahul

L.L Gabel v. Sarva Nand Gehi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.L Gabel v. Sarva Nand Gehi

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

Manohar Soni Vs Pravin Chand Surana

Dhanwanti Devi Vs Praveenchand Surana

Inder Chand Soni Vs Praveen Chand Surana

(Deleted) Shivnarayan Gole (Died) Through Lrs. Vs Chief Executive Officer

Vimal Kumar Agrawal Vs Shravan Kumar Agrawal and Ors.

Hirday Ram And Anr. Vs Basant Ram And Anr.