Officer-In Charge CSEB, Chirmiri v. Nidhir Singh
Judgment
: Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP 16:35:03 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board
12.08.2026
Heard on IA No.01/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing restoration application.
Present MCC has been filed for restoration of First Appeal No.158/2004, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.08.2018.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that First Appeal No.158/2004 (Officer Incharge, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Nidhir Singh & Ors.) was listed for hearing before this Court on 03.8.2018. However, when the case was called out for hearing, counsel appearing for the appellant was not present, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant came to know about aforesaid dismissal when the proceedings were undertaken by the trial Court in execution proceedings. Thereafter, instant MCC along with application for condonation of delay was filed. Learned counsel further submits that delay of 511 days in filing the present MCC is bonafide, hence, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the first appeal may be restored to its original number.
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they are formal party. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first appeal was dismissed on 08.03.2018 for want of prosecution. Thereafter, instant MCC has been filed on 29.01.2020 along with application dated 11.02.2020 to condone the delay in filing the MCC. No sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to condone such huge delay of 511 days. 3
The lapse of time not only creates rights in favour of the opposite party, but, in some cases, the parties may also proceed on the basis of the status that has arisen as a consequence of the dismissal of the case or appeal.
In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi,
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.