Lal Sahu v. Years
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
The restoration application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 22 r. 9
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge
Judgment
DEFENDANT Lal Sahu , aged about 45 years.
4. Mrs. Nirmala Bai D/o Lt.Chowki Lal Sahu, aged about 41 years.
5. Kamal Narayan S/o Lt.Chowki Lal Sahu , aged about 38 years.
6. Ramesh Kumar S/o Lt.Chowki LalSahu , aged about35 years.
7. Mrs. Rameshwari D/o Lt.Chowki Lal Sahu, aged about 30 years. All R/o Village - Kasdol, P.S. & Tahsil Kasdol, District-Raipur (C.G.) Chowki Lal Sahu (dead), S/o Pyare Lal Sahu , aged about 35 years. R/o Village - Kasdol, P.S. & Tahsil Kasdol, District - Raipyr (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Vijay Lal S/o Burga aged about 55 Years R/o Village - Kasdol, District Raipur, (C.G.),
2. State of M. P. Now (C.G.),Through Collecor, Raipur (C.G.), APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF S. A. N0. 1127 / 1998 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Civil Case No.1104 of 2012 APPLICANTS:
1. Mrs. Mutkuni Bai
2. Ramkhilawan
3. Mrs. Neera Bai
4. Mrs. Nirmala Bai
5. Kamal Narayan
6. Ramesh Kumar
7. Mrs. Rameshwari APPELLANT/: (Defendant) Chowki Lal Sahu (dead) "Versus RESPONDENTS:
Vijay Lal
State of M.P. Now (C.G.) {Application for restoration of S.A.No.1127/1998} Present: Mr. Sudhir Verma, counsel for the applicants. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (1-2-2013) 1. The applicants have filed this application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 1127/1998 dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 7-11-2012 passed by this Court.
2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the restoration application with liberty to file appropriate petition under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside abatement on account of death of sole appellant Chowkilal Sahu who died in the year 2008.
Operative part
The restoration application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. No order as to costs.
Certified copy of the order impugned be returned to counsel for the applicant on his submitting the duly attested Photostat copy of the same.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The restoration application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 22 r. 9.
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.