Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42450 (CHH)

SUKALU NAVRANGE v. NARENDRA SATYAVANSHI

MCC/1083/2024 · 2025-01-14

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:2341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1083 of 2024 1. Sukalu Navrange S/o Ramadin Navrange, Aged About 52 Years R/o Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Semabai Navrange W/o Sukalu Navrange, Aged About 48 Years R/o Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3. Bhagwan Das S/o Sukalu Navrange, Aged About 30 Years R/o Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4. Atma Bai Navrange D/o Sukalu Navrange Aged About 36 Years R/o Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1. Narendra Satyavanshi S/o Kanshiram Satyavanshi, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Majgaon Road, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shobharam Banjare S/o Mehtar Banjare, Aged About 42 Years R/o Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, Chhabda Plaza, 2nd Floor, Naveen SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.01.16 17:11:19 +0530 2 Bazar, Upper Floor To Bank Of Maharashtra, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 4. Bhuru S/o Panchu Tandan Aged About 40 Years R/o Bade Udiya, Police Station - S. Sohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicants : None. For Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. Today none appears on behalf of the applicants even when the case is taken up for hearing in second round, it appears that the applicants are not interested in this case. 2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the applicants, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the present MCC is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.