1 2025:CGHC:46084-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 125 of 2017 1. Ramkripal Lodhi, S/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nagar Panchayat Bodari, Ward No.10, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Rajeshwari Lodhi, D/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 26 Years, W/o Shri Atish Lodhi, R/o Old Sarkanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Devjani Lodhi, D/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 20 Years, W/o Shri Rajesh Lodhi, R/o Jhopadapara, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Mithila Bai, D/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 22 Years, W/o Shri Sanjay Lodhi, R/o Village Motipur, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1. Ramfal Lodhi, S/o Shivnarayan Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Ward No.10, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Jawahar Lal Lodhi, D/o Heeralal Lodhi, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Tifra, Infront Of Kalimandir, Manadol, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ramkali, D/o Late Shivnarayan Lodhi, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Biharilal Lodhi, R/o Bazar Charbhata, Kawardha, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. 4. Munni Bai, D/o Late Shivnarayan Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years, W/o Ram Pratap Lodhi, R/o Bazar Charbhata, Kawardha, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. 5. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendants (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. For Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.5 : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order On Board 10/09/2025 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he has no instructions on behalf of the appellants in the present case. 2. In view of above submission made by the counsel for appellants, this Court is left with no other option, but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge