M/s Jain Bricks Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Om Prakash Agrawal
FA/29/2013 · 2025-10-14
Shri Parth Prateem Sahu
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52535 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52535 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
-1-
2025:CGHC:51456
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 29 of 2013 1 - M/s Jain Bricks Pvt. Ltd., 36, Heera Market, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur C.G 2 - Suresh Jain S/o Lattu Ram Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G., Director, M/s Jain Bricks Pvt. Ltd., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s) versus Om Prakash Agrawal S/o Late Lallu Prasad Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Geetanjanli Nagar, Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : None appears
Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate ___________________________________________________________
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 15/10/2025
1. None appears for the appellants. Earlier on 11.04.2025 also, no one appeared on behalf of appellants. However, in the interest of justice this Court issued fixed date SPC for their appearance or Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.16 11:29:04 +0530
-2- representation before this Court fixing the date of appearance on
12.06.2025. SPC sent to appellants as per service report was served upon them on 13.05.2025. Thereafter case was listed for hearing on 20th June 2025. Again no one appeared on behalf of appellants and case was adjourned for 08.09.2025. On the last date also, no one appeared on behalf of appellants and again case was adjourned for 15.10.2025. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of appellants even when case is taken up for hearing in second round.
2. Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel submits that as per his information, sole respondent passed away on 16.02.2016.
3. In the aforementioned facts of case, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
4. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen