1 2026:CGHC:2503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 188 of 2015 1 - Hem Bai Sahu D/o Kisano Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhatgaw Post And Revenue Circle In The Tahsil Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar/bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhatgaw Post And Revenue Circle In The Tahsil Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar/bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Kisano Sahu S/o Mujnu Sahu Aged About 81 Years R/o Village Bhatgaw, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District- Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Badrika Bai D/o Kisano Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhatgaw, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District- Baloda SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.01.15 16:46:52 +0530 2 Bazar/bhatapara, Chhattisgarha, Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kanhaiya Lal Sahu S/o Tijram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bhatgaw, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District- Baloda Bazar/bhatapara, Chhattisgarha, Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Naneshwari W/o Ganeshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhatgaw, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District- Baloda Bazar/bhatapara, Chhattisgarha, Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District- Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellants : None For Respondent(s) : Shri Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. On 17.09.2025, 31.10.2025, and 25.11.2025, none appeared on behalf of the appellants, whereupon >xed date SPC were 3 issued to them for their appearance. On 07.01.2026, the appeal was adjourned for hearing today with the observation that the SPC issued to the appellants vide order dated 25.11.2025 had been duly served upon them. However, even today, none appears on behalf of the appellants despite repeated calls. 2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib