1 2025:CGHC:61387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 173 of 2012 SURESH PRASAD aged about 54 years, S/o Late Peelaram Lodhi, resident of Village KHLLORAKAL P.C. No. 13 Tah Dhamda Distt- Durg (C.G.) ……… Appellant VERSUS 1. SANTOSH SAHU aged about 37 year, S/o Late Khamhan Sahu, resident of Village KHILLORA Tahsil Dhamda, Distt:- Durg (C.G.)..(PLAINTIFF) 2. BODHRAM (deceased) aged about 65 years S/o Mayaram Sahu resident of Village KHLORAKALA P.C. No. 13, DHAMDA Distt-Durg (C.G.) 3. PEELARAM (deceased). S/o Gaind Singh Lodhi, resident of Village Tekapar Tah-Dhamda, Distt:- Durg (C.G.) 4. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through :- District Collector Durg, Collectorate - Durg Tah & Distt-Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : None For Respondent No.1 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 4/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. Earlier vide order dated 05.05.2025, the SPC issued to the appellant was served on 14.07.2025, however, no representation was made on VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.19 11:13:42 +0530 2 his behalf. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.10.2025, another fixed date SPC was issued to the appellant, which was also served upon the appellant, but no representation was made on behalf of the appellant. Again vide order dated 20.11.2025, a fresh fixed date SPC was issued to the appellant and the office report shows that, it was served upon the appellant on 04.12.2025, yet neither the appellant is present nor any representation is made on his behalf to pursue the appeal. 2. In view of the above, the present second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved