Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23087 (CHH)

BOBBY TOPPO v. PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL

MAC/593/2022 · 2026-06-23

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:25870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 593 of 2022 1 - Bobby Toppo Wd/o Late Beetu Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Mangla, Near School, Police Station Civil Lines , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Neetu Toppo (Minor) D/o Late Beetu Aged About 16 Years Resident Of Village Mangla, Near School, Police Station Civil Lines , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Neelesh Toppo (Minor) S/o Late Beetu Aged About 9 Years Resident Of Village Mangla, Near School, Police Station Civil Lines , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Surajpur , Ketka Road, Police Statio Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Motorcycle No. Cg 07 Lf 7026), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - R.B.S. Sengar S/o Shri J.M. Senga R/o (A) C/o Jain Auto , Balod, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. (B) Ambikapur , Police Station Ambikapur District SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.06.24 16:30:17 +0530 2 Surguja Chhattisgarh. Through Proprietor Gevra Project Deepika , Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. Cg07 Lf 7026) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager , Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. Cg 07 Lf 7026) ---- Respondents (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellants : None. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/06/2026 1. On 29.04.2026, none appeared on behalf of the Appellants when the matter has been called twice. Today also, no representation made on behalf of the Appellants even when the matter is called in second round. This Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. 2. Accordingly, the case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham