1 2026:CGHC:13508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 700 of 2017 1 - Sukhnandan (Died) Through Legal Heirs 1.1 - Chain Singh (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 22-02-2022. 1.1.1 - Samaliya W/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Salhi, Police Station And Tehsil Udaipur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 1.1.2 - Manjeet S/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 17 Years Represented By Their Mother And Natural Samaliya , R/o Village Salhi, Police Station And Tehsil Udaipur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 1.1.3 - Sanjeet S/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 14 Years Represented By Their Mother And Natural Samaliya , R/o Village Salhi, Police Station And Tehsil Udaipur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 1.1.4 - Pushpendar S/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 11 Years Represented By Their Mother And Natural Samaliya , R/o Village Salhi, Police Station And Tehsil Udaipur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Chaman Singh S/o Sukhanandan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Salhi Police Station And Tehsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh Lr No. 2 Of Defendant 1.3 - Dilman Singh S/o Sukhanandan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Salhi Police Station And Tehsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh Lr No. 3 Of Defendant ..Appellant(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.03.24 10:40:23 +0530 2 versus 1 - Kendibai D/o Thakur Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Agriculture , R/o Parsa Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Government Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja Chhattisgarh. Res . No. 2 Defendant No. 2 , District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : None For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Resp No.2 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 20/03/2026 1. On 03/03/2026, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Even today also, none appears on behalf of the appellant despite the case having been called out on repeated calls. It appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the present appeal. 2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul