1 (MAC No. 1119 of 2020) CGHC010202802020 2026:CGHC:38851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1119 of 2020 1 - Leelaram Shrivas S/o Tikaram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Muchchhamalda, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Baza-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ........... (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg-04 L 1940), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sakharam Jangde S/o Late Sadhuram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Muchchhamalda, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Baza-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Priyanka D/o Sakharam Aged About 14 Years No. 2 Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Sakharam Jangde, R/o Village Muchchhamalda, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Baza-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Tamanna D/o Sakharam Aged About 8 Years No. 3 Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Sakharam Jangde, R/o Village Muchchhamalda, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Baza-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Bhumika D/o Sakharam Aged About 5 Years No. 4 Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Sakharam Jangde, R/o Village Muchchhamalda, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Baza-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Ritu D/o Sakharam Aged About 18 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Muchchhamalda, Post Office Bhinodi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Baza- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2026.09.03 11:04:12 +0530 2 (MAC No. 1119 of 2020) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- None in two rounds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02.09.2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in two rounds. Even on 05.08.2026, none appeared on behalf of the appellant in two rounds. 2. Since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the instant MAC for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant MAC is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!