1 2025:CGHC:39810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 242 of 2019 1 - Yogesh Kumar Paikra S/o Lakhan Lal Paikra Aged About 25 Years R/o Kharha, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Quarter No. 13/a, S. T. 15, Sector No. 02, Bhilai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.......(Driver Of Motorcycle Honda Sine Bearing Registration No. 07 Ab 3073 ).......(Non Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jeevan Lal Paikra S/o Puniram Paikra Aged About 50 Years R/o Quarter No. 13/a, S. T. 15, Sector No. 02, Bhilai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.......(Owner Of Motorcycle Honda Sine Bearing Registration No. 07 Ab 3073 ), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Sadhram Kaiwartya S/o Malikram Kaiwartya Aged About 55 Years R/o Bagdevipara, Kasdol, P. S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...............(Claimants), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bajrang Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Mangalu Ram Aged About 19 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Kasdol, P. S. And Tahsil Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh .......(Non Claimants No. 3), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : None for the appellant For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08.08 .202 5 SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1. On 25.06.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and looking to the changed circumstances of the said demise of the counsel engaged by the appellant, fix date SPC was issued. The SPC sent to the appellant was reported to be served upon the petitioner/appellant in the office note dated 30.07.2025. 2. Thereafter, the case was listed on 01.08.2025, on the said date, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and case was adjourned for next week. 3. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. In the above facts of the case, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the instant appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey