1 2026:CGHC:8972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 586 of 2018 1 - Smt. Kaleshiya Bai Wd/o Late Nakul Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Madmada, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Vikas Patel S/o Late Nakul Patel Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kaleshiya Bai, Wd/o Late Nakul Patel, R/o Village Madmada, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Kuleshwar Patel S/o Late Nakul Patel Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kaleshiya Bai, Wd/o Late Nakul Patel, R/o Village Madmada, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Vishambhar Patel S/o Guhararam Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Madmada, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Patabai Patel W/o Vishambhar Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Madmada, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.20 17:54:47 +0530 2 1 - Balram Patel S/o Chaitram Patel Aged About 45 Years Occupation Owner Of John Deere Tractor No. Cg06-C-9166, R/o Village Mainpuri, Post Mahrajpur, Tahsil Kawardha, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Bhilai, 19200 District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : None For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing and the case was called out, neither the learned counsel for the appellants nor the learned counsel for the respondents appeared before this Court. Even on the third call of the matter, none appeared to press the appeal. It thus appears that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the present appeal. 2. In view of the continued non-appearance of the parties and absence of any representation, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh