Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15332 (CHH)

Ravi Shankar And Ors. v. Vimal Kumar And Ors.

FA/158/2015 · 2026-01-12

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:1937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 158 of 2015 1. Ravi Shankar And Ors. S/o Sanichram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kirari, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Shiv Shankar S/o Sanichram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kirari, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Uma Shankar S/o Sanichram Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Bhojli Bai W/o Sanichram, R/o Village Kirari, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Hari Shankar S/o Sanichram Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Bhojli Bai W/o Sanichram, R/o Village Kirari, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Vimal Kumar, S/o Kapur Chand Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Raj Kumar S/o Kapur Chand Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Akaltara, Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.14 10:39:39 +0530 2 3. Sanichram S/o Shri Ramadhar Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Khadpadipara Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir, And District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. On repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the appellant to prosecute the matter. Since no one is appearing, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. 2. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti