Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13312 (CHH)

NAKUL PRASAD JAISWAL v. RAGINI JAISWAL

WPL/92/2025 · 2026-05-06

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:21299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 92 of 2025 1. Nakul Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Ram Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tendubhata Police Chouki Naila P.S. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2. Raghuveer Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Ram Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Tendubhata Police Chouki Naila P.S. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3. Mahavir Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Ram Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Tendubhata Police Chouki Naila P.S. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ragini Jaiswal W/o Pawan Kumar Jaiswal D/o Dwarika Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 29 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar Quarter No. B- 289 Kusmunda District - Korba (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 1) 2. Collector District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Defendant No. 1 3. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (Cspgcl) Through Its Executive Director (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya District - Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2) 4. Executive Director (Gen.) Dspm Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba East District - Korba (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.05 .2026 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.07 13:47:38 +0530 2 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by efflux of time, this petition has become infructuous. 2. Taking into consideration the submission advanced by Mr. Deo, this petition is dismissed being rendered infructuous. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant