Shri Kant Agrawal vs Praveen Kumar Agrawal 62 Mcc/339/2019 ... on 3 May, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Shri Kant Agrawal vs Praveen Kumar Agrawal 62 Mcc/339/2019 ... on 3 May, 2019

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

   1                                     MCC No. 360 of 2019

                                                               NAFR

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     MCC No. 360 of 2019

1. Shri Kant Agrawal S/o Rambhajan Agrawal Aged About 57
   Years R/o Agrawal Para Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Aryaratna Agrawal S/o Late Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal
   Aged About 43 Years R/o Agrawal Para Arang, District
   Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Kapil Narayan Agrawal S/o Late Ram Bhajan Lal Agrawal
   Aged About 64 Years R/o Agrawal Para Arang, District
   Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                  ---- Appellants

                           Versus

1. Praveen Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Guljari Lal Agarwal,
   R/o Village Arang, Tahsil Arang Abhanpur, District Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh.

3. The Superintendent Of Police District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Arang - Abhanpur,
   District Abhanpur, Chhattisgarh.

5. The   Tahsildar    Raipur,   Tahsil   Arang    District     Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh.

6. The Station House Officer Police Station Mandeer Hasaud,
   Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                               ---- Respondents

2 MCC No. 360 of 2019

For Appellants :- Office Reference Order On Board By Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ 03/05/2019

1. In MCC No.161/2015 this Court directed restoration of WPCR No.172/2014 subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Petitioner's counsel moved an application before the Registry on 23.02.2019 seeking to deposit the amount of cost. Finding that the deposit is made after about 4 years on the date of order Registry has placed this matter for appropriate direction.

3. Even if there was no time limit fixed for deposit of cost, the same should have been made within a reasonable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasonable time would be of 3 months. However, the deposit has been offered after about 4 years, therefore, deposit of cost after such enormous delay is not permissible.

4. In above observation, the MCC is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Acting Chief Justice Ankit

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court