MD. ABDUL MANNAN LASKAR and 17 ORS v. SIDDEK ALI MAZUMDAR and 2 ORS
RSA/180/2010 · 2025-02-16
Devashis Baruah
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12760 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12760 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010107042010
2025:GAU-AS:1667
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/180/2010 MD. ABDUL MANNAN LASKAR and 17 ORS S/O LATE SANUHER ALI LASKAR, ON THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF NO. 2, MAHMOD RAJA HIS SUCCESSORS 2: MUSSTT. TAJUN NESSA LASKAR W/O LATE MAHMAD RAJA LASKAR 3: RINA BEGUM LASKAR DAUGHTER
4: ABDUL JAMAN LASKAR SON
5: NAJIRA BEGUM LASKAR DAUGHTER
6: JAYDA BEGUM LASKAR DAUGHTER
7: ABDUL KADER LASKAR SON MINOR
8: RUBINA BEGUM LASKAR DAUGHTER MINOR
9: SAHID AHMED LASKAR SON MINOR 7 TO 9 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER TAJUN LASKAR NO.2 10: FAIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O LATE SANUHAR ALI LASKAR.
Page No.# 2/3 11: MUSTT. JOYTUN BIBI W/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 12: TAIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 13: NURUL HUDA LASKAR S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 14: HUSSAIN AHMED LASKAR S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 15: MAHMUDUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 16: ALI AHMED LASKAR S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 17: SAMIR AHMED LASKAR S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR 18: MUSTT. MEHERUN NESSA D/OLATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. BRAJAPUR PART-I P.S. and DIST. HAILAKANDI VERSUS SIDDEK ALI MAZUMDAR and 2 ORS S/O LATE ABDUL RASHID MAZUMDAR, R/O VILL. SAFETY BRAZAPUR, P.S.
and DIST. HAILAKANDI.
2:STRUCK OFF VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 2/2/2018 3:STRUCK OFF VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 2/2/201
Page No.# 3/3 For the Appellant(s) : None appears
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Barbhuiya, Advocate
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER Date : 17.02.2025
None appears on behalf of the appellants on call.
2. It is also seen that on the earlier occasions also none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. In addition to that, no substitution application has been filed by the appellant No. 1 as well as by the respondent No. 1, although, the same has been duly reflected in the
order dated 08.06.2023.
3. Considering the above, it seems that the appellants have lost interest in the instant appeal, for which, the instant appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. The Registry shall return the LCR to the learned Court below.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant