SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
KU. LIVISA – Appellant
Versus
RISHI MISHRA – Respondent
MCC 312/2021



Advocates:
['HEMANT GUPTA', '', 'NEERAJ CHOUBEY', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCC No. 312 of 2021

1. Ku. Livisa D/o Late Rajkumar Tondan Aged About 11 Years Through

Gaurdian Smt. Santoshi Tondan, Wd/o Late Rajkumar Tondan,

Occupation Farmer, R/o Village Tumdileha, Post Banbghera, P. S.

Somani, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

2. Ku. Roshani D/o Late Rajkumar Tondan Aged About 16 Years Through

Gaurdian Smt. Santoshi Tondan, Wd/o Late Rajkumar Tondan,

Occupation Farmer, R/o Village Tumdileha, Post Banbghera, P. S.

Somani, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Santoshi Tondan Wd/o Late Rajkumar Tondan Aged About 38

Years, R/o Village Tumdileha, Post Banbghera, P. S. Somani, Tahsil

And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

4. Rahul Tondan S/o Late Rajkumar Tondan Aged About 18 Years R/o

Village Tumdileha, Post Banbghera, P. S. Somani, Tahsil And District

Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

5. Firturam Tondan S/o Late Padum Tondan Aged About 65 Years, R/o

Village Tumdileha, Post Banbghera, P. S. Somani, Tahsil And District

Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Non-Applicants

Versus

1. Rishi Mishra S/o Late R. S. Mishra Aged About 44 Years R/o Ramadhin

Marg, P. S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh

3. Kiriti Rajput W/o Shayam Sundar Rajput R/o Kailash Nagar,

Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicants

For Applicants:

Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate.

For the State/Non-Applicant No.2:

Smt. Smita Jha, P.L.

2

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

Order On Board

29.06.2021

1.

On due consideration of Default No.3, as pointed out by the Registry, the

same is hereby dropped.

2.

Heard on admission.

3.

This M.C.C. has been filed for restoration of M.C.C. No.386/2020, which

was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 14.08.2020, as

passed in the said petition i.e., M.C.C. No. 386/2020.

3.

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application for

restoration of the said petition, I am inclined to allow the same.

4.

Accordingly, the instant M.C.C. is allowed and M.C.C. No.386 of 2020 is

restored to its original number.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal)

JUDGE

vivek

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top