Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47992 (RAJ)

ANITA v. MADANMOHAN AND OTHERS

CMA/2451/2016 · 2025-10-30

Maneesh Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:43563] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2450/2016 1. Siyaram @ Rinku, aged about 29 S/o Satyanarayan, 2. Anita aged about 28 years W/o Siyaram @ Rinku, 3. Priyanshu aged about 6 years S/o Siyaram @ Rinku, being minor through his natural guardian and father Siyaram @ Rinku S/o Satyanaryan, All R/o Khati Mohalla, Baswa, Teh. Baswa, Distt. Dausa ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Madanmohan S/o Babulal, R/o Shyalawas Kala, Teh. Baswa, Police Station Bandikui, Distt. Dausa. 2. Kamruddin Khan S/o Alaudddin Khan, R/o Behind Police Station, Ward No.8, Bandikui, Teh. Baswa, Distt. Dausa. 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Transport Nagar, Jaipur ----Non-Claimants/Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2451/2016 Anita aged about 28 years W/o Siyaram @ Rinku, R/o Khati Mohalla, Baswa, Teh. Baswa, Distt.Dausa ----Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Madanmohan S/o Babulal, R/o Shyalawas Kala, Teh. Baswa, Police Station Bandikui, Distt. Dausa. 2. Kamruddin Khan S/o Alaudddin Khan, R/o Behind Police Station, Ward No.8, Bandikui, Teh. Baswa, Distt. Dausa. 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Transport Nagar, Jaipur ----Non-Claimants/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Joshi Ms. Poonam Chand Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order [2025:RJ-JP:43563] (2 of 2) [CMA-2450/2016] 30/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that despite his best efforts, no updated instructions have been received from the clients, and consequently, in the absence of such instructions, counsel is unable to argue the matter. 2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, present misc. appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall be at liberty to file an application for revival of the appeals, if the cause of action still survives, subject to applicable law. 4. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /5-6