Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48117 (CHH)

Shakuntla And Ors. v. Swarsati Bai And Ors.

SA/237/2014 · 2025-11-03

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 237 of 2014 1 - Shakuntla W/o Ramsharan Gupta Aged About 65 Years R/o Sipat, Tahsil. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ganesh Gupta S/o Ramsharan Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Balkrishna Gupta S/o Ramsharan Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Bhagwati W/o Mohan Lal Aged About 40 Years R/o Hardikala, Tahsil And District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sharda W/o Ramlal Aged About 37 Years R/o Rajkishor Nagar, Tahsil And District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Laxmikant S/o Dwarika Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramakant S/o Dwarika Aged About 36 Years R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Swarsati Bai W/o Damodar Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kumar Tekriwal S/o Rajkumar R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vimla Bai W/o Daras Ram Aged About 50 Years D/o Dwarika Prasad, R/o Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.04 19:23:47 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. On 27.06.2025 and 22.08.2025 also, no one appears on behalf of the appellants and SPC was issued to the appellants. The SPC issued to the appellants have been served upon them through their son and younger brother namely Ashutosh Gupta on 20.09.2025, however, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellants in the present appeal. 2. In view of the above, the present second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved