1 2025:CGHC:17698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 236 of 2025 1 - Sukalu Navrange S/o Ramadin Navrange Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Semabai Navrange W/o Sukalu Navrange Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Bhagwan Das S/o Sukalu Navrange Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Atma Bai Navrange D/o Sukalu Navrange Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Narendra Satyavanshi S/o Kanshiram Satyavanshi Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Majgaon Road, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Shobharam Banjare S/o Mehtar Banjare Aged About 42 Years R/o Mudiyapara, Police Station And Tahsil- Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.17 15:45:57 +0530 2 3 - The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Chhabda Plaza, 2nd Floor, Naveen Bazar, Upper Floor To Bank Of Maharashtra, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4 - Bhuru S/o Panchu Tandan Aged About 40 Years R/o Bade Udiya, Police Station- S. Sohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : None For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17/04/2025 1. The present MCC no. 236/2025 has been filed for restoration of earlier MCC No.1083/2024. Vide order dated 20.03.2025 of this Court, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioners/appellants was directed to file affidavit of the claimants in support of the instant MCC but, today also no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners/appellants even when the matter is called in second round. 2. Since, there is no representation made on behalf of the petitioners/appellants even when the matter is called in second round. This Court has left with no other option except to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham