Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1400 (CHH)

Smt. Savitri Devi v. Horilal Chandel And Ors.

SA/553/2013 · 2025-08-25

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:43175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 553 of 2013 1. Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Puran Singh Rajpoot Aged About 59 Years R/o Dau Choura, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Horilal Chandel And Ors. S/o Kontar Singh Chandel Aged About 63 Years R/o Chhirahidih, P.H.No. 14, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. Bhikhmanga S/o Ram Dayal Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Kongiakala, Tah. Saja, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Pushpa Thakur W/o Rupendra Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Chhirahidih, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Nandu S/o Asha Ram Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Chhirahidih, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5. Raj Kumar S/o Asha Ram Nishad Aged About 39 Years R/o Chhirahidih, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6. Budharu S/o Asha Ram Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o Chhirahidih, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7. Rupendra Singh S/o Arun Singh Thakur Aged About 65 Years R/o Kongiakala, Tah. Saja, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thru- The Collector, Rajnandgaon C.G., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.08.28 11:36:25 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 26.08.2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant pleads no instructions from the client. 2. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Consequently, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file restoration application, if occasion arises. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish