Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

1971 DAILYLAW 172 (RAJ)

SMT. USHA KANWAR W/O LATE SHRI MAHAVEER SINGH SHEKHAWAT, v. VIKRAM SINGH S/O SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH

CMA/1971/2022 · 2026-02-25

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body1971

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1971/2022 1. Smt. Usha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 95 Jhirali Dhani, Sewapura, Teh. Amber, District Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Aradhya Kanwar D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 6 Years, R/o 95, Jhirali Dhani, Sewapura, Teh. Amber, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Banne Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 95 Jhirali Dhani, Sewapura, Teh. Amber, District Jaipur (Raj.). 4. Smt. Manohar Singh W/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 95, Jhirali Dhani, Sewapura, Teh- Amber, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus 1. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village Prasin, Shahaganj, District Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh). (Driver Truck No. Hr 38 R 0775 2. Kapoor Diesel Garage Pvt. Ltd., Through Directors, R/o Plot No. 40, Idc, Maharauli Road, Gudganv (Haryana). Registered Owner Truck No. Hr 38 R 0775. 3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Chand Sharma, R/o Mohallah Sablalpura, Teh. Bahrod, Alwar (Raj.) Power Of Attorney Holder Truck No. Hr 38 R 0775. 4. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager Regional Office-Second Floor, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (Policy No. 31130131160100000513) (Validity From 10/05/2016 To 09/05/2017) (Insurance Company Truck No. Hr 38 R 0775). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND (2 of 2) [CMA-1971/2022] Order 25/02/2026 1. The instant civil misc. appeal is lying pending before this Court in defect side for last several year and no steps have been taken by the counsel for the appellants to cure the defect(s). 2. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting this matter and they have lost interest in pursuing the same. 3. In view of the above, the instant civil misc. appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 4. However, the appellants would be at liberty to move application for revival of this petition, in case, any cause of action or grievance still survives. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/96