ANAND AGRAWAL AND OTHERS v. BABULAL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
MA/17/2012 · 2025-06-18
Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3094 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3094 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:25584
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 17 of 2012
1. Anand Agrawal, S/o Late Gajanand, R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
2. Murlidhar Agrawal, S/o Late Gajanand Agrawa, Dadu Gudakhu Factory, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
3. Harprasad Ramratan Rathore, Rathore, S/o R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG) ... Appellants versus
1. Babulal Agrawal, S/o Mansa Ram, aged about 62 years, Proprietor, M/s. Vikash Gudakhu Factory, Agrasen Marg, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
2. M/s. Dadu Gudakhu Factory, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG), 3 Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma, R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. B. P. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI
2 Order on Board 19/06/2025
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that by the efflux of time, this miscellaneous appeal has become infructuous.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. In view of above contention made by learned counsel for the appellants, this instant miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge Ravi Mandavi