Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey, JJ
MOHD. MOIN @ TULSI PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER – Respondent
MCC No. 41 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramsevak Soni, Ravi Kumar
For the Respondents: Rahul Tamaskar
Condonation of delay and restoration of a dismissed case is granted when sufficient cause, such as the death of a close family member, prevents compliance with a court-ordered cost payment.
Headnote:The matter pertains to an application for condonation of delay and the restoration of a previously dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC). The applicant sought the restoration of MCC No. 708/2022, which had been dismissed following the failure to deposit a cost of Rs. 2,000/- as a condition for the restoration of First Appeal (M) No. 57/2017. The court found that the applicant was unable to comply with the timeline due to the demise of his son. The primary issue was whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause to condone a delay of 749 days and restore the dismissed proceedings. The court reasoned that the personal tragedy involving the death of the applicant's son constituted a valid ground for the failure to adhere to the peremptory order regarding the payment of costs. Consequently, MCC No. 708/2022 is restored to its original number for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay is granted upon showing sufficient cause. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. family bereavement constitutes sufficient cause for non-compliance with peremptory cost orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. restoration of a dismissed case subject to the payment of prescribed costs. (Para 6 , 7) |
Order on Board
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Head on I. A. No. 01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condoning the delay, accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed and the delay of 749 days in filing the MCC is condoned.
3. Also heard on the application seeking restoration of MCC No. 708/2022 to its original file.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that MCC No. 708/2022 was allowed vide order dated 03.11.2023, whereby First Appeal (M) No. 57/2017 was restored to its original number for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- towards the High Court Legal Services Committee, along with proof thereof on or before 10.11.2023. It is further submitted that due to the unfortunate demise of the applicant’s son, the applicant could not deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, as a result of which MCC No. 708/2022 came to be dismissed. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of further time to deposit the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the High Court Legal Services Committee.
5. Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that MCC No. 708/2022 stood dismissed by virtue of a peremptory order.
6. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, the instant MCC is allowed. Consequently, MCC No. 708/2022 is restored to its original number for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
7. The applicant is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.2,000/- towards the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 30 days from today.
