1 2025:CGHC:53564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 869 of 2019 1. Sumitra Bai Wd/o Late Kapil Dev Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jamadi, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Babanram Singh S/o Shri Buddhu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jamadi, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Kayaso Bai W/o Shri Babanram Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Jamadi, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Kumari Priti Singh D/o Shri Babanram Singh Aged About 16 Years Minors, Through Their Natural Guardian Sumitra Bai, Wd/o Late Kapil Dev Singh, R/o Village Jamadi, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Ku. Nandani Singh D/o Shri Babanram Singh Aged About 12 Years Minors, Through Their Natural Guardian Sumitra Bai, Wd/o Late Kapil Dev Singh, R/o Village Jamadi, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ramkhelawan Gond S/o Shri Rajkaran Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Pal, Danauni, Police Station Odagi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.04 14:12:24 +0530 2 2. Dharmjeet Gond S/o Shri Baidyanath Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kala Maanjan, Police Station Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 3-11-2025 1) On 24.1.2025, this appeal was admitted for hearing and notices were issued to respondents. On 30.7.2025, the notice issued to respondent No. 2, namely, Dharmjeet Gond was returned unserved on account of his death and learned counsel who appeared for the appellant sought time to take appropriate steps. On 11.8.2025, again three weeks’ time was granted at the request of learned counsel for the appellants. Similarly, on 8.9.2025 again three weeks’ time was sought by the appellants but till date, no steps have been taken to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2. 2) It appears that appellants are not vigilant and desirous to pursue this matter, therefore this Court is left with no other alternative other than to dismiss this appeal. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a