Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14811 (CHH)

BHOLARAM v. PRABHULAL

SA/285/2020 · 2025-09-18

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:48388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 285 of 2020 1 - Bholaram S/o Late Mayaram Yadav Aged About 55 Years. 2 - Uttara S/o Late Mayaram Yadav Aged About 35 Years. Both Resident Of Village - Kokdhi, Tehsil - And Ps - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants. versus 1 - Prabhulal S/o Late Hariram Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years. 2 - Dileep S/o Late Hariram Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years. 3 - Tularam S/o Late Hariram Jaiswal Aged About 41 Years. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, R/o Village - Risda, Agriculturist Village - Kokdhi, Post - Risda Tehsil - Balodabazar- District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : None For State : Ms. Mandwi Bhardwaj, PL. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 15:40:25 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu) Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel submits that the appellants have withdrawn the file from his office and have also taken NOC on the Vakalatnama for engaging some other counsel. However, when none appeared on behalf of the appellants and considering the submission made by Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate this Court on 28.07.2025 issued SPC for appearance of the appellants. Thereafter, the case was listed on 26.08.2025. On the said date also, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. 2. Office report shows that the SPC issued to appellants Nos.1 and 2 is served. However, even thereafter, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts situation of the case, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss this Appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Shyna/Avinash