1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 32 of 2007 1. Mahesh Kumar, son of Dular Singh, Caste Kalar, aged about 30 years 2. Bhushan Lal, son of Dular Singh, Caste Kalar, aged abut 27 years 3. Rupesh Kumar, son of Dular Singh, Caste Kalar, aged about 23 years All residents of Village Bhimpuri, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Basant Kumar, son of Chaitram Kumhar, aged about 30 years 2. Rupsay, son of Dhanajiram Gond, aged about 35 years 3. Shravan Kumar, son of Shanku, aged about 30 years 4. Shivcharan, son of Hiralal Teli, aged about 50 years 5. Birbal, son of Mangluram Teli, aged about 30 years 6. Dhurauram, son of Mehar Singh Halba, aged about 60 years 7. Bodhanlal, son of Ujiyar Halba, aged about 40 years 8. Tameshwari, wife of Jageshwar (Panch) Gond, aged about 45 years 9. Budhwari, son of Pardeshi Teli, aged about 65 years 10. Dinuram, son of Subhran Teli, aged about 45 years 11. Mahettar, son of Raghunath Gond, aged about 50 years 12. Thakurram, son of Baisakhu Sirdar, aged about 45 years 13. Ramdas, son of Dukalu Teli, aged about 55 years 14. Bharatram, son of Shersingh Halba, aged about 35 years 15. Bedram (Up-Sarpanch), son of Namalum Gond, aged about 35 years 16. Rumin Bai, daughter of Baisakhu Sirdar, aged about 23 years Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.28 13:49:32 +0530 2 17. Mohran, son of Dhurau Halba, aged about 45 years All residents of Village Bhimpuri, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : None For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of the parties even when case is taken up for hearing in second round. 2. Earlier, case was listed on 30.7.2025. On said date also, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants and fixed date SPC was issued for their appearance. Thereafter, case was listed on 17.9.2025. On said date also, no one appeared on behalf of appellants nor for respondents. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of respective parties. Appeal is pending since 2007. 3. In aforementioned facts of case, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Gopal