Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27817 (CHH)

MOHAMMAD SALEEM ISHAQUE v. MAZHAR ISHAQUE

MA/104/2023 · 2025-06-18

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:25967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 104 of 2023 1 - Mohammad Saleem Ishaque S/o. Late Jaan Mohammad, Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Bihari Talkies, Old High Court Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Mo.No. 7869869494 -- Defendant No. 1 -- ... Appellant versus 1 - Mazhar Ishaque S/o. Late Jaan Mohammad, Aged About 73 Years R/o. Dipopara Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. - Plaintiff 2 - Parvej Ishaque, S/o. Late Ziya Ishaque, Aged About 53 Years R/o. Dipopara Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Firoz Ishaque, S/o. Late Ziya Ishaque, Aged About 51 Years R/o. Dipopara Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For appellant : None appears. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Adv. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. The appellants/defendant No. 1 has preferred this misc. appeal against the order dated 24-4-2023 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.06.20 11:15:51 +0530 2 in Civil Suit No. 31A/2023, whereby the trial Court has allowed the ap- plication filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that Civil Suit No. 31-A/2023 (Majhar Ishak and ors Vs. Mohd. Saleem Ishak and anr.) has been decided by the trial Court and final judgment and de- cree has been passed. Hence this appeal has become infructuous. 3. Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the appellant. In this circumstance, this Court is left with no option except to dismiss this ap- peal for want of prosecution. 4. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak