1 2025:CGHC:47654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 209 of 2008 1. Champa Bai Aged About 45 Years W/o Supetram R/o Village Kurda P.H. No.1, Tah. Champa , Janjgir Champa ... Appellant/Def. No.1 versus 1. Veena Tiwari widow of Late Vinod alias Rajendra Tiwari, aged 45 years, resident of village Kurda, PH No.10, Tahsil Champa, at present R/o Karahi Colony PO Karahi, PS & Tehsil Mungeli District Bilaspur (CG) Plaintiff 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Jangjir, District Janjgir Champa (CG) 3. Satyabhama w/o Surendra Pandey, aged 32 years, R/o Balco District Korba. ... Respondents For Appellant : None For Respondent no.1 : Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/9/2025 1. When the matter is called out in the first round of hearing, none appeared on behalf of appellant. Even in the second round, there is no representation on behalf of appellant. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 2. Perusal of order sheets would show that as no one was appearing on behalf of appellant since 28.1.2020, this Court directed for issuance of SPC for appearance of appellant either in person or through her counsel. Thereafter, the appeal was listed for hearing on 27.8.2020, 16.9.2020 and 3.4.2025 but on all these dates none appeared on behalf of appellant. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.4.2025 this Court again directed for issuance of fixed SPC to appellant on the address given in memo of appeal for making arrangement of her representation before this Court. Since the service report of SPC issued to appellant is shown to be awaited, on 1.8.2025 again SPC was issued to appellant and in compliance thereof, SPC was issued to appellant through District Judge, Janjgir Champa. However, as per office note dated 10.9.2025, SPC issued to appellant received back un- served with endorsement that appellant is not residing in the given address, she is residing along with her daughter either nearby Raipur or Durg. 3. In the above circumstance, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-