1 2025:CGHC:45500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 70 of 2021 1 - Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Established Under Life Insurance Corporation Of India Act 1956 Through Manager (Land Hpf), Divisional Office Jeevan Prakash Jeevan Beema Marg Pandari, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kiran Kumar Paseene, S/o Nand Lal Paseene, Aged About 60 Years Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt Suneeta Devi Jaiswal, W/o Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 40 Years R/o 31 Light Industrial Area, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt Kiran Jaiswal, W/o Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Jawahar Chwok, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt Uma Devi Jaiswal W/o Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 38 Years R/o 31 Light Industrial Area, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Nagar Nigam Bhilai, Through Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.11 11:54:19 +0530 2 For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that dispute has been settled between the appellant and the respondent No.2 & 3 outside the Court and appellant has received decretal amount, therefore, decree passed by 7th Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg in Civil Suit No.14/B/2007, vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2010 has been fully satisfied, therefore, he submits that he does not want to press on I.A. No.01/2021, application for condonation of delay in filing present appeal and also I.A. No.03/2025, Compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. 2. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3 also conceded aforesaid facts. 3. In view of the above, aforementioned two applications are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi